starttime 1258489185.79782
] THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: ON
TH VOTE THE YEAS ARE 417.
THE NAYS ARE ZERO.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: ON
THIS VOTE THE YEAS ARE 419.
THE NAYS ARE ZERO.
2/3 HAVING RESPONDED IN THE
AFFIRMATIVE, THE RULES ARE
SUSPENDED, THE RESOLUTION IS
AGREED TO AND WITHOUT OBJECTION
A MOTION TO RECONSIDER IS LAID
ON THE TABLE.
THE HOUSE WILL BE IN ORDER.
THE HOUSE WILL ENTERTAIN
REQUESTS FOR ONE-MINUTE
SPEECHES. FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS RISE?
>> MR. SPEAKER, I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO WITHDRAW MY NAME AS
A CO-SPONSOR OF H.R. 3904.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:
WITHOUT OBJECTION, SO ORDERED.
FOR WHAT REASON DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM ILLINOIS RISE?
>> MR. SPEAKER, I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE
TH
WITHOUT OBJECTION, THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED.
MR. QUIEY: MR. SPEAKER, TODAY
THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY
AGENCY RELEASED DISTURBING
INFORMATION ABOUT IRAN.
THEY SAID THEY COULD BE
CONSTRUCTING SEVERAL MORE
CONVERT NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS.
THE REPORT ALSO SAID THAT IRAN
LIED ABOUT THE FACILITY WE DO
KNOW ABOUT SAYING CONSTRUCTION
BEGAN IN 2007.
WHEN SATELLITE PHOTOS PROVED IT
WAS STARTED IN 2002.
MOST DISTURBING OF ALL, REPORT
INDICATES THAT TEHRAN HAS NOT
PRODUCED ONE IN 3/4 TONS OF
LOW-ENRICHED URANIUM.
THAT'S ENOUGH FOR TWO BOMBS IF ENRICHED FURTHER.
FOUR WEEKS AGO, IRAN WAS
OFFERED A DEAL TO SHIP ITS
URANIUM OVERSEAS FOR
PROCESSING.
BUT IT GAVE MORE DELAYS.
TODAY'S REPORT MAKES I
WE CAN'T AFFORD TO OFFER ANY
MORE DEALS OR ACCEPT ANY MORE DELAYS.
THIS HOUSE TOOK BOLD ACTION THE IRAN
SANCTIONS ENABLING ACT.
IT NOW MUST PASS THE
PETROLEUM SANCTIONS ACT.
THE TIME FOR ACTION IS NOW.
I YIELD BACK.
THE SP
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
THE HOUSE WILL BE IN ORDER.
MEMBERS WILL TAKE THEIR
CONVERSATIONS TO THE CLOAKROOM
OR REMOVE THEIR CONVERSATIONS
FROM THE FLOOR. FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE
GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS RISE?
MR. SMITH: MR. SPEAKER, I ASK
PERMISSION TO ADDR
FOR ONE MINUTE AND REVISE AND
EXTEND MY REMARKS.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR ONE MINUTE.
MR. SMITH: MR. SPEAKER, WITH 15
MILLION PEOPLE UNEMPLOYED, IT'S
NO WONDER THAT AMERICANS
INCREASINGLY ARE CONCERNED
ABOUT ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.
A C OPINION RESEARCH POLL
FOUND THAT ONLY 36% OF
AMERICANS NOW APPROVE OF THE
PRESIDENT'S HANDLING OF ILLEGAL
IMMIGRATION.
58% DISAPPROVE.
THE POLL ALSO FOUND THAT 73% OF
AMERICANS WANT TO SEE THE
NUMBER OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS IN
THE U.S. DECREASED.
THIS IS THE
SINCE THE QUESTION WAS FIRST
ASKED IN 2006.
IN ADDITION, GAL LINEUP
REPORTED THAT THE PERCENTAGE --
GALLUP REPORTED THAT THE
PERCENTAGE INCREASED FROM 39%
TO 50%.
THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION SHOULD
E INTEREST OF AMERICANS
AHEAD OF THOSE OF ILLEGAL
IMMIGRANTS.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM NEW YORK RISE?
>> UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO ADDRESS
THE HOUSE FOR ONE MINUTE AND TO
RAX MY REMARKS.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:
WITHOUT OBJECTION. MR. WEINER: MR. SPEAKER,
EARLIER TODAY IN AN EFFORT TO
SCARE PEOPLE AND TO FRIGHTEN
THEM, A MEMBER OF THIS HOUSE
CAME TO THE FLOOR AND SUGGESTED
THAT THE IDEA OF
TRIAL OF CLEED SHEIK MOHAMMED
IN NEW YORK MIGHT JEOPARDIZE
THE FAMILY OF THE MAYOR IN NEW
YORK.
NOW, PUT ASIDE THE IDEA THAT WE
HAVE AN IDEA TO -- KHAD SHAKE
MOHAMMED IN NEW YORK MIT
JEOPARDIZE THE FAMILY OF THE
MAYOR IN NEW YORK.
NOW, PUT ASIDE THE IDEA THAT
SHOULD PUT KHALID SHAKE
MOHAMMED TO DEATH, AND THAT'S
HOW IT SHOULD BE, BUT ANY
MEMBER OF THE HOUSE TO
THAT TO HAVE
MAY JEOPARDIZE THE MAYOR OF YORK.
NOW, THAT MEMBER KNOWS WHO HE IS.
THAT MEMBER SHOULD BE QUIET.
IT'S ONE THING TO BRING A BABY
TO THE FLOOR AND USE AS A PROP
IN THE HEALTH CARE DEBATE A
QUITE ANOTHER TO SAY THAT THE
FAMILY OF THE MAYOR OF THE CITY
OF N
BECAUSE THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT
POLITICAL VIEW ABOUT HOW TO
CARRY OUT JUSTICE.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOETHE GENTLEMAN
FROM TEXAS RISE?
>> TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE FOR ONE
MINUTE AND TO REVISE AND EXTEND
MY REMARKS.
GENTLEMAN WILL SUSPEND FOR JUST
A MOMENT.
MR. NUKE BAUER: MR. SPEAKER,
FOR THE FIRST TIME IN AMERICAN
HISTORY, FOREIGN SOLDIERS
CAPTURED ON FOREIGN
BATTLEFIELDS ARE GIVEN U.S.
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.
THE BIGGEST ISSUE FOR ME AND
CONSTITUENTS, WHAT OUTRAGES US
ABOUT THESE TERRORISTS BEING
TRIED IN NEW YORK IS NOW FOR
THE FIRST TIME THIS
ADMINISTRATION, THIS LIBERAL
CONGRESS IS GIVING U.S.
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO
FOREIGN SOLDIERS CAPTURED ON
FON BATTLIELDS.
THEY'RE GOING TO LAWYER UP AT
TAXPER EXPENSE, THEY'RE GOING
TO ALL ASK FOR EVERY
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT THAT A REGULAR U.S. CRIMINAL DEFENDANT
GETS AND THEY'RE GOING TO GET
OFF ON TECHNICALITIES.
NOW, KHALID SHAKE MOHAMMED AND
THESE -- KHALID SHAIKH MOHAM
AND THESE TERRORISTS ARE GOING
TO BE FREED ON TECHNICALITIES,
NO U.S. SOLDIER SHOULD BE HELD
TO THE SE STANDARD AS A
POLICE OFFICER ON THE STREETS
OF NEW YORK.
IT'S WRONG.
IT VIOLATES OUR CORE PRINCIPLES
AS A NATION AND IT ENDANGERS
OUR MILITARY.
WE CANNOT GIVE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS TO ENEMY SOLDIERS
CAPTURED ON FOREIGN
TTLEFIELDS, ESPECIALLY THESE
MURDERERS, THESE TERRORISTS
HELD AT GUANTANAMO.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: ARE
THERE FURTHER ONE-MINUTE
ADDRESSES?
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEWOMAN FROM CALIFORNIA
RISE?
MS. WOOLSEY: MR. SPEA UNANIMOUS
FOLLOWING LEGISLATIVE BUSINESS
AND ANY SPECIAL ORDERS
HERETOFORE ENTERED INTO THE
FOLLOWING MEMBERS MAY BE
PERMITTED TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE
FOR FIVE MINUTES, TO REVISE AND REMARKS, AND
INCLUDE THEREIN EXTRANEOUS
MATERIAL. MS. WOOLSEY, CALIFORNIA.
MR. DAVIS, ILLINOIS.
MR. DEFAZIO, OREGON.
MS. KAPTUR, OHIO.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:
WITHOUT OBJECTION. UNDER THE SPEAKER'S ANNOUNCED
POLICY OF JANUARY 6, 2009, AND
UNDER A PREVIOUS ORDER OF THE
HOUSE, THE FOLLOWING MEMBERS
ARE RECOGNIZED FOR FIVE MINUTES
EACH.
MR. POE OF TEXAS.
THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR
FIVE MINUTES.
MR. POE: THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
MAJOR NIDAL HASAN IS A TERRORIST.
IF ANYONE NEEDS CONFIRMATION,
IT SAYS ON HIS OWN BUSINESS
CARDS, "SOLDIER OF ALLAH," AND
THOSE BUSINESS CARDS WERE FOUND
IN HIS APARTMENT.
WITHIN AN HOUR OF HIS TERRORIST
ATTACK ON FORT HOOD, THE F.B.I.
QUICKLY TOLD US HE'S NOT A TERRORIST.
THE AUTHORITIES TOLD US NOT TO
JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS WHILE THEY
JUMPED TO CONCLUSIONS.
THE NEWS MEDIA HAS CALLED HASAN
EVERYTHING BUT A TERRORIST.
HASAN HAS -- WAS CALLED A LONE
GUNMAN, TROUBLED INDIVIDUAL WHO
SOMEHOW SUFFERED FROM
POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER.
THE
HE HADN'T BEEN DEPLOYED OVERSEAS.
SO HOW COULD HE HAVE
POSTTRAUMATIC STRESSTIES ORDER?
MAY IT SHOULD BE CALLED PRE-POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS
DISORDER.
THEY SAID HIS RAMPAGE WAS A
RANDOM ACT OF VIOLENCE.
HE WAS STRESSED AND FORCED TO
SNAP AND THEY EVEN BLAME IT ON
-- BUT DON'T CALL HIM A TERRORIST.
REPORTS LEAKED OUT THAT HE HAD
SAID "GOD IS GREAT" WHILE
GUNNING DOWN INNOCENT PEOPLE.
ACCORDING TO "THE DALLAS
MORNING NEWS," THERE ARE
INVESTIGATIONS IF HE WIRED
MONEY TO AFGHANISTAN.
HIS APARTMENT DIDN'T HAVE MUCH
FURNITURE IN IT.
HE DROVE AN OLD CAR BUT MADE
OVER $100,000 A YEAR.
NOW PEOPLE ARE ASKING WHERE DID
ALL THAT MONEY GO?
ACCORDING TO A COLLEAGUE AT
WALTER REED HOSPITAL, HE HAD A
MEETING CALLED JIHAD AND WAR.
INEAD OF THE MEDICAL LECTURE,
THAT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO TALK
ABOUT, HASAN TALKED ABOUT
PUNISHMENT.
THIS DID UPON INFIDELS,
DECAPITATION, AND HAVING HOT
OIL POURED DOWN YOUR THROAT.
ACCORDING TO HIS COLLEAGUE AT
THE HOSPITAL, THIS FREAKED A
LOT OF DOCTORS OUT. WELL, NO KIDDING.
BUT APPARENTLY NOT ENOUGH FOR
ANYONE TO BREAK THEIR
POLITICALLY CORRECT SILENCE AND
REPORT HIM.
ONE OF THE POLITICALLY CORRECT
POLI MADE THOSE WHO REPORT
CRES SO TIMID?
HASAN'S CLIQUES SAID HE WAS THE
KIND OF BOY WHO THE STAFF
ACTUALLY STOOD AROUND IN THE
HALLWAY SAYING, DO YOU THIN
THIS GUY'S A TERRORIST OR IS HE
JUST ODD?
NOTHING WAS DONE AND WHY WASN'T
HE FORMALLY -- FORMALLY REPORTED BY COLLEAGUES?
THERE IS NO ANSWE.
HASAN EXCHANGED EMAIL WITH AN AL
QAEDA RECRUITER 20 TIMES.
ACCORDING TO "THE WALL STREET
JOURNAL" THE PENTAGON SAID THEY
WERE NEVER TOLD BY INTELLIGENCE
AGENCIES ABOUT THE EMAILS.
WHICH RAISES EVEN MORE QUESTIONS.
THE F.B.I., ARMY INTELLIGENCE,
THE C.I.A., APPARENTLY THEY'RE
IT IS IT STILL NOT TALKING TO
EACH OTHER.
SO WE NEED CONGRESSIONAL
INVESTIGATIONS ON THIS ENTIRE SITUATION.
I'VE ASKED THAT THE TERRORISM
SUBCOMMITTEE WHICH I SERVE ON IN
CONGRESS INVESTIGATE THIS SITUATION.
THERE WERE WARNING SIGNS THAT
WERE IGNORED BECAUSE HE WAS A
MUSLIM.
IS THIS A REFLECTION ON ALL
MUSLIMS IN THE ARMY?
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
WE HAVE THOS
FAITH LOYALLY SERVING IN IRAQ
AND AFGHANISTAN.
MANY SPEAK FARSI AND HELP OUR
TROOPS IN COMBAT.
BUT IT IS A REFLECTION ON ONE
PERSON WHO RADICALIZED.
THERE WERE WARNING SIGNS AND
INTERVENTION SHOULD HAVE
OCCURRED MUCH EARLIER.
IT'S A REFLECTION ON THE ARMY'S
ABILITY TO BE DESIVE AND TAKE
CARE OF BUSINESS, TAKE CARE OF A
THREAT WHEN THEY SEE IT.
THEY MISSED THE OBVIOUS.
THE QUESTION IS, IS THIS
CONTINUING TO HAPPEN IN THE MILITARY?
ARE THEY GOING TO CONTINUE TO
IGNORE THE OBVIOUS?
HASAN HAD MURDERED 14 PEOPLE
INCLUDING THE PREGNANT SOLDIER
AND HER UNBORN CHILD AND SHE WAS
SENT HOME FROM IRAQ OUT OF THE
WAR ZONE TO HAVE HER BABY.
MR. SPEAKER, WHEN IT GETS TO THE
POINT WHERE POLITICAL
CORRECTNESS PUTS THE LIVES OF
OUR TROOPS IN DANGER ON AMERICAN
SOIL AT THEIR HOME BASE, IT'S
WELL PAST TIME TO STOP PLAYING PREPOSTEROUS P.C. GAMES.
BY THE WAY, MR. SPEAKER, DO YOU
KNOW WHAT THE MILITARY
OFFICIALLY CALLS TERRORISTS?
WE DON'T USE THAT TERM TERRORIST
ANYMORE.
THEY'RE OFFICIALLY CALLED ALIEN
UNLAWFUL BELLIGERENTS.
NOW ISN'T THAT LOVELY?
WE CAN'T CALL THEM TERRORISTS OR
KILLERS OR CRIMINALS BECAUSE
THAT MIGHT HURT THEIR FEELINGS.
THE AMERICAN MILITARY, THE
F.B.I. AND THE MEDIA MUST DEAL
WITH THE FACTS AND THE TRUTH
WITHOUT TRYING TO MISLEAD THE
AMERICAN PUBLIC.
D THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT
I YIELD BACK.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
FOR WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLELADY FROM CALIFORNIA RISE?
>> MR. SPEAKER, I ASK UNANIMOUS
CONSENT TO ADDRESS THE HOUSE FOR
FIVE MINUTES.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MS. WOOLSEY: THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
LAST WEEK ON VETERANS DAY THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE PAID TRIBUTE TO
THE HEROIC MEN AND WOMEN WHO
HAVE AND ARE SERVING IN OUR
MILITARY.
FORTUNATELY MOST VETERANS RETURN
HOME SAFE AND SOUND.
THEY DEVOTE THEMSELVES TO THEIR FAMILIES, THEY BECOME LEADERS IN
THEIR COMMUNITIES.
I KNOW MANY VETERANS IN MY DISTRICT.
THEY ARE AMONG THE MOST
RESPECTED AND BELOVED NEIGHBORS.
BUT TOO MANY VETERANS, MR.
SPEAKER, NEVER GET THE CHANCE TO
RESUME THEIR LIVES.
THEY DIED IN BATTLE OR THEY
RETURN HOME WITH TERRIBLE WOUNDS
THAT WILL NEVER HEAL.
THEIR LOVING FAMILIES FEEL THE
SCARS OF WAR, TOO, ESPECIALLY
THE CHILDREN.
TODAY AMERICAN SOLDIERS CONTINUE
TO FACE
AND IN IRAQ.
NEARLY 5,300 HAVE ALREADY DIED
IN THOSE TWO CONFLICTS.
ABOUT 35,000 HAVE BEEN WOUNDED.
AND WHEN THE WOUNDED RETURN HOME
THEY OFTEN FACE MANY CHALLENGES.
ACCORDING TO A STUDY BY THE
HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL OVER
130,000 VETERANS ARE HOMELESS.
OVER 2,200 VETERANS DIED LAST
YEAR BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE
HEALTH INSURANCE.
AND, MR. SPEAKER,ANY VETERANS
ARE OUT OF WORK IN THIS
RECESSION.
THIS CONGRESS AND OBAMA AND HIS
ADMINISTRATION --RESIDENT
OBAMA AND HIS ADMINISTRATION --
RECOGNIZE THESE PROBLEMS AND
WE'VE MADE SOME GOOD PROGRESS IN ADDRESSING THEM.
THIS HOUSE HAS PASSED NEW
LEGISLATION THAT HELPS VETERANS.
WE'VE PASSED A STRONG HEALTH
INSURANCE REFORM BILL THAT WILL
HELP VETERANS.
IN ADDITION, GENERAL SHINSEKI,
THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS'
AFFAIRS, HAS PROMISED AN ALL-OUT
EFFORT TO END VETERANS HOMELESSNESS.
HE HAS ALSO LAUNCHED A NEW
EFFORT TO STRENGTHEN HOUSING,
EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT AND
MEDICAL CARE OPPORTUNITIES FOR OUR VETERANS.
WE NEED TO DO ALL OF
SPEAKER, AND WE NEED TO DO MORE.
BUT I'VE ALWAYS BELIEVED THAT
THE BEST WAY TO SERVE OUR
VETERANS IS TO DO
CAN TO KEEP THEM OUT OF HARM'S
WAY IN THE FIRST PLACE.
THAT MEANS SENDING OUR TROOPS TO
WAR ONLY AS A LAST RESORT.
WHEN WE'VE EXPLORED EVERY
ALTERNATIVE.
IN AFGHANISTAN WE HAVEN'T MET
THAT TEST.
WE HAVE RELIED ALMOST
EXCLUSIVELY ON THE MILITARY
SOLUTION FOR OVER EIGHT LONG
YEARS AND WE SEE WHERE THAT'S
GOTTEN US -- ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE.
MR. SPEAKER, WE HAVE LEARNED
THAT THERE IS NO MILITARY SOLUTION TO AFGHANISTAN AND
WE'VE LEARNED THAT LESSON THE
HARD WAY AND WE'VE LEARNED IT
THROUGH THE NUMBER OF DEAD AND
WOUNDED.
THAT'S WHY I URGE PRESIDENT
OBAMA TO SAY NO TO SENDING MORE
TROOPS TO AFGHANISTAN.
OUR TROOPS HAVE ALREADY BEEN
STRETCHED TO THE LIMS BY
REPEATED DEPLOYMENTS.
THEIR FAMILIES HAVE ALREADY
SUFFERED ENOUGH ON THE HOME FRONT.
AND ESCALATING THE WAR WILL ONLY
HELP THE VIOLENT EXTREMISTS IN
AFGHANISTAN TO RECRUIT MORE
VIOLENT EXTREMISTS TO ATTACK OUR TROOPS.
INSTEAD OF PURSUING THE SAME
FAILED STRATEGY OF THE PAST,
I'VE CALLED FOR
THAT RELIES ON ALL THE EFFECTIVE
TOOLS OF SMART SECURITY.
THESE TOOLS
HUMANITARIAN AID, ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT, EDUCATION, CIVIL
AFFAIRS AND BETTER INTELLIGENCE
AND POLICE WORK TO SEARCH OUT
AND CAPTURE EXTREMISTS.
AT LEAST 80% OF ALL FURTHER
FUNDING FOR AFGHANISTAN SHOULD
BE DEVOTED TO THESE SMART POWER
EFFORTS.
MR. SPEAKER, THE CASUALTY
FIGURES ARE GROWING IN AFGHANISTAN.
WE OWE IT TO OUR COURAGEOUS
TROOPS TO PROTECT THEIR LIVES
BEFORE WE HAVE ANOTHER IRAQ ON
OUR HANDS.
SO SMART SECURITY MUST BE USED
BECAUSE IT CAN GET US A LOT
FARTHER IN AFGHANISTAN.
MUCH FARTHER THAN MILITARY POWER ALONE.
MR. SPEAKER, LET'S CHANGE OUR
STRATEGY BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.
LET'S BRING OUR TROOPS HOME,
LET'S BRING THEM HOME
SOUND AND SUCCESSFUL.
I YIELD BACK.
THE EAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE GENTLELADY YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HER TIME.
MR. JONES OF ILLINOIS.
MR. DAVIS OF INDIANA --
ILLINOIS.
THE GENTLEMAN IS RECOGNIZED FOR
FIVE MINUTES. MR. DAVIS: THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
I ASK UNANIMOUS CONSEN
REVISE AND EXTEND MY REMARKS.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: WITHOUT
OBJECTION.
MR. DAVIS: THANK YOU VERY MUCH,
MR. SPEAKER.
YESTERDAY AS S.T.F.-129 LIFTED
OFF THERE WAS A GLIMPSE OF PRIDE
IN
BECAUSE ONE OF THE
BOARD WAS ROBERT THATCHER.
DOCTOR, CHEMICAL ENGINEER AND
NATIVE OF OAK PARK, ILLINOIS,
AND THE SEVENTH CONGRESSIONAL
DISTRICT.
DR. SATCHER IS THE SECOND
ASTRONAUT TO HAIL FROM OAK PARK,
ON THE WESTERN BORDER OF CHICAGO.
IN A COMMUNITY TO BOAST SUCH A
RECORD OF PRODUCING ASTRONAUTS
DESERVES A SECOND LOOK.
THE COMMUNITY WAS JUST OVER
50,000 RESIDENTS, TO ACCUMULATE
SUCH A RECORD, SOMETHING MUST BE
GOING ON THAT IS VERY RIGHT.
BUT OF COURSE IN THE END IT IS
UP TO THE INDIVIDUAL TO
DETERMINE WHAT TO DO WITH THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THEIR LIVES.
DR. ROBERT THATCHER HAS DONE
SOME AMAZING THINGS WITH HIS
LIFE.
AN ORTHOPEDIC SURGEON WHO
PRACTICES AT NORTHWESTERN
MEMORIAL AND CHILDREN'S MEMORIAL
HOSPITAL, TEACHES AT
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL
SCHOOL, DOES RESEARCH AT THE
COMPREHENSIVE COUNCIL CENTER OF
NORTHWESTERN AND THE INSTITUTE
OF BIOENGINEERING AND NATO
TECHNOLOGY IN ADVANCED MEDICINE
AT NORTHWESTERN.
DR. THATCHER IS A 1/2UE OF
FORMER U.S. SURGEON GENERAL --
NEPHEW OF FORMER U.S. GENERAL
DAVID THATCHER.
HE IS MARRIED TO A DOCTOR AND
THEY HAVE A DAUGHTER.
DR. THATCHER WAS AT THE SWITESER
HOSPITAL, COMPLETED NUMEROUS
MEDICAL MISSIONS FOR OUTREACH
CARE FOR UNDERSERVED AREAS IN
NICARAGUA, VENEZUELA, NIGERIA
AND GABON.
HE HELD INTERNSHIPS AT DUPONT IN
THE TEXTILE
GROUP AND THE POLL MERE PRODUCTS
DIVISION.
GROWING UP HE WAS A NATIONAL
MERIT SCHOLAR AND RECEIVED AN
AWARD AND THE
AWARD FROM M.I.T.
FELLOWSHIPS FROM BOTH THE ROBERT
WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION AND THE
MERCK RESEARCH FOUNDATION AND IS
A MEMBER OF THE ENGINEERING
HONOR SOCIETY.
HE IS A LEADERSHIP FELLOW OF
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ORTHOPEDIC
SURGEONS, A.B.C. FELLOW OF THE
ORTHOPEDIC ASSOCIATION,
BLOOMBERG LEADERSHIP FELLOWSHIP
THAT COMPLETED 12 RESEARCH
GRANTS AND HAS 15 PEER REVIEW
PUBLICATIONS AND OVER 25
PRESENTATIONS AT NATIONAL AND
INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH MEETINGS.
HE HAS BEEN ACTIVE IN THE BIG
BROTHER FOR YOUTH AT RISK
COSELING PROGRAM, DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, SAN FRANCISCO,
CALIFORNIA, THE BLACK STUDENT
UNION TUTORIAL PROGRAM AT
M.I.T., THE NATIONAL SOCIETY OF
BLACK ENGINEERS, THE AMERICAN
INST CHEMICAL
ENGINEERING, A SUPERVISING ADULT
FOR CUB SCOUTS FOR BOYS IN
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE, AND HE IS
A LATE EMISS COULD PAL MINISTER
WITH PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITIES
FOR VISITING THE SICK AND SHUTIN
MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH IF AT A
CHURCH IN CHICAGO AND ST. JAMES
CHURCH IN HOUSTON.
HE WAS SELECTED FOR ASTRONAUT
CANDIDATE TRAINING BY NASA IN
MAY OF 2004 AND COMPLETED
TRAINING IN FEBRUARY OF 2006.
ON STF-129, HE IS SCHEDULED TO
PERFORM TWO E.V.A.'S, SPACE
WALKS, AMONG OTHER ASSIGNMENTS.
FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO
ON TWITTER, HE WILL BE TWEETING
AT ASTROBONES AND GMB.
GOD SPEED TO YOU, DR. THATCHER.
YOU HAVE A LOT OF FANS BACK ON
EARTH AND ESPECIALLY THOSE IN
OAK PARK,
I THANK YOU AND
BALANCE OF MY TIME. GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
MR. BURTON OF INDIANA.
DEFAZIO OF OREGON.
MORAN OF KANSAS.
MS. KAPTUR OF OHIO.
MS. KAPTUR: I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS
THE HOUSE FOR FIVE MINUTES AND
PUT EXTRANEOUS MATERIAL IN THE
RECORD.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: WITHOUT OBJECTION.
MS. KAPTUR:
IN IRAQ AFTER THOUSANDS UPON
THOUSANDS OF LOST LIVES AND
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF
DISABLING INJURIES, AFTER $1
TRILLION OF U.S. TREASURE ADDED
TO OUR NATION'S DEBT, AFTER AN
INCALCULABLE AMOUNT OF U.S.
PRESTIGE BEING LOST, ONE
ABOUT IRAQ REMAINS DEFING.
IT'S ALL ABOUT OIL AND THE
SPOILS OF OIL ACROSS THAT
REGION.
EXXON, THE LARGEST U.S. OIL
COMPANY WITH PROFITS TOTALING
$40.6 BILLION IN 2008, A RECORD,
JUST GOT ITS FIRST CONTRACT
INSIDE IRAQ.
FOREIGN OIL COMPANIES LIKE EXXON
WERE THROWN OUT OF THAT COUNTRY
FOUR DECADES AGO WHEN SADDAM
HUSSEIN NATIONALIZED IRAQ'S OIL FIELDS.
MICHAEL CLAIRE AND HIS PRECIOUS
E LORDS, BLOOD
AND OIL CONNECTS THE DOTS.
WHAT A SHAME OUR WORLD IS SO PRIMITIVE.
PEOPLE BRUTALLY FIGHT OVER
DIMINISHING RESOURCES AS GLOBAL
ENERGY EXTRACTION GIANTS
ADVANTAGE THEMSELVES FAR FROM
HOME IN THE WAKE OF
, TAPPING LARGESS THESE OIL
GIANTS COVET.
IRAQ RANKS FOURTH INLOBAL OIL
RESERVES BEHIND SAUDI ARABIA,
CANA AND IRAN.
IRAQ'S CENTRAL GOVERNMENT IS NOW
PICKING WINNERS IN THE GREAT OIL
PRIZE BONANZA.
THE IRAQI OIL CONTRACTING RUSH
OF 2009.
OIL HAS DOMINATED IRAQ'S ONOMY
FOR GENERATIONS.
OIL IS TRADITIONALLY PROVIDED
MORE THAN 90% OF THAT COUNTRY'S
EXCHANGE EARNINGS.
AND IT IS LIKELY TO BE THE CASE
FOR A FEW DECADES TO COME UNTIL
IT'S ALL SUCKED DRY.
ACCORDING TO "THE WASHINGTON
POST," THE OIL MINISTRY IS
EXPECTED TO HOLD A NEW BIDNG
ROUND IN DECEMBER FOR
UNDEVELOPED FIELDS.
THOSE ARE ALSO FOR SERVICE AGREEMENTS.
OIL GIANTS HOPE THE DEALS COULD
ONE DAY LEA
SHARING DEALS LONG AGO O GLOBAL
ENERGY FIRMS THAT HAVE BEEN SHUT
OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST FOR
YEARS.
THE OIL GIANTS, EXXON MOBILE,
ROYAL DUTCH SHELL, SIGNED A $50
BILLION DEAL WITH IRAQ TO
EXTRACT OIL FROM THE WESTERN
CURRENT OIL FIELDS, ONE OF
IRAQ'S LARST OIL FIELDS
LOCATED WEST OF BASRA IN
SOUTHERN IRAQ.
IT IS BELIEVED TO HOLD 11 -- $11
-- 11 BILLION TO 15 BILLION
BARRELS OF RESERVE AND THAT
GIVES SHELL AND THEIR PARTNERS
$1.90 PER BARREL ABOVE THE
CURRENT PRODUCTION RATES OF $2
-- 2.5 MILLION BARRELS A DAY
THEN HOPE TO INCREASE PRODUCTION
TO SEVEN MILLION A DAY OVER THE
NEXT SIX YEARS, MEETING A
WINDFALL OF 3.1 BILLION PER YEAR.
ARE THE LIVES OF OUR SOL
WORTH IT?
THE GIANT EXXON MOBILE SHELL
CONSORTIUM BEAT OUT THE OTHER
OIL GIANT CONSORTIUM IT'S LED BY
RUSSIA, FRANCE AND CHINA.
DICTATORS HAVE COME AND GONE,
FOREIGN ARMIES HAVE COME AND
GONE, SOME STILL REMAIN, ONE
THING REMAINS CONSTANT ABOUT
IRAQ, OIL IS STILL THE BIG
PRIZE.
THAT'S WHY GIANTS GOING ALL THE
WAY BACK TO THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE
HAVE COVETED NTROL OF THEIR
CRUDE.
CYNICS WOULD EVEN SAY THEY WERE
WILLING TO GO TO WAR OVER IT.
AS WE OBSERVED THE CONTINUING
RUSH TO THE OIL FIELDS, BY A
WORLD THAT MUST T
TRANSITION TO A GREENER
AND SUSTAINABLE ENERGY FUTURE,
ONE MUST ASK THE TOUGH
QUESTION.
ARE THE S OF OUR
MILITARY GOING TO BE EXPENDED?
FOR HOW LONG?
FAR AWAY
TO ACCESS A RESOURCE THAT IS
DIMINISHING GLOBALLY WHILE
AMERICA'S TREASURY IS EMPTY,
SUPPORTING WARS IN FOREIGN
PLACES TO TAP A RESOURCE BY
2050 WILL BE GONE NEVER TO
RETURN AGAIN.
CIVILIZED PEOPLE, CIVILIZED
PEOPLE SHOULD DEMAND MORE THAN
FIGHTING THE RESOURCE WARS OF
THE PAST FOR THE OIL GIANTS,
FOR THE OIL GIANTS' PRIZES, FOR
A LIMITED REMAINING TIME ON
THIS PLANET.
IT'S TIME TO THINK HARD ABOUT
WHERE WE HAVE EXTENDED OUR MOST
PRECIOUS ASSETS AND TO SAY IT'S
TIME TO COME HOME.
MR. SPEAKER, I YIELD BACK MY
REMAINING TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE GENTLELADY YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HER TIME.
MR. DIAZ-BALART FROM FLORIDA.
MR. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART FROM
FLORIDA.
UNDER THE SPEAKER'S ANNOUNCED
POLICY OF JANUARY 6, 2009, THE
GENTLEMAN FROM LOUISIANA, MR.
CASSIDY, IS
MINUTES AS THE DESIGNEE OF THE
MINORITY LEADER.
MR. CASSIDY: THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
MR. SPEAKER, I AM -- ALTHOUGH
YOU CALLED ME MR., I AM
ACTUALLY A
AND SO IN MY OTHER LIFE, IN
FACT, I SAW PATIENTS YESTERDAY
AT A PUBLIC HOSPITAL IN
LOUISIANA, A SAFETY HOSPITAL
WHERE I WORKED FOR 20 YEARS.
SO CARING FOR THE UNINSURED HAS
BEEN MY LIFE'S WORK SINCE
COMPLETING MY RESIDENCY AND
RETURNING HOME.
AND I'VE LEARNED
DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO COST
THAT IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW
PASSIONATE YOU ARE FOR THE
UNINSURED, THE FACT IS YOU ARE
UNABLE TO ACHIEVE YOUR GOALS.
THERE ARE THREE GOALS OF HEALTH
CARE REFORM AND THEY ARE
COMMONLY SAID TO BE CONTROLLING
COSTS TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO
HIGH-QUALITY CARE.
AND IN THE HOSPITAL WHERE I
WORK, THE SAFETY NET HOSPITAL,
THEY ARE COMMITTED, THEY ARE SO
PASSIONATE FOR THE UNDERSERVED
FOLKS WHO ARE PHYSICAL
THERAPISTS, WORK CLERKS,
PHYSICIANS, NURSES, BUT THE
PROBLEM IS IF THERE IS A BUDGET
SHORTFALL THAN INEVITABLY
SERVICES SUFFER.
IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW
PASSIONATE WE ARE IN OUR
SERVICE, THE FACT IS IF THERE
IS INSUFFICIENT RESOURCES IN
THE STATE AT THE END OF THE
BUDGET YEAR THEN SERVICES
SUFFER.
THAT NURSING STAFFING
IS DECREASED AND HOSPITAL BEDS
ARE CLOSED SO IF SOMEBODY COMES
TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM THEY HAVE
TO WAIT IN THE EMERGENCY ROOM
BEFORE THEY'RE ADMITTED.
AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS THE
HOSPITAL GOES ON DIVERT,
WHEREAS INSTEAD OF COMING TO
OUR HOSPITAL THEY WILL BE
DIVERTED TO ANOTHER HOSPITAL.
AND THAT IS BECAUSE IF YOU
DON'T CONTROL COST, INEVITABLY
ACCESS AND QUALITY SUFFER.
NOW I WAS STRUCK THAT PRESIDENT
OBAMA AGREES WITH THIS.
PRESIDENT OBAMA CONTINUALLY
AGREES WITH THE NEED TO BEND
THE COST CURVE DOWN, THE NEED
TO CONTROL COSTS, BECAUSE IF WE
DO NOT CONTROL COSTS THEN OUR
ECONOMY SUFFERS AND THE ABILITY
TO PROVIDE CARE SUFFERS.
NOW, IT'S ONE THING TO SAY WE
ARE GOING TO CONTROL COSTS BUT
-- IN ORDER TO EXPAND ACCESS TO
QUALITY CARE.
BUT YOU GOT TO HAVE A PLAN ON
HOW TO GET THERE.
THERE IS A COMPANY CALLED
MCKENZIE, MCKENZIE AND COMPANY,
AND ON THEIR WEBSITE THEY HAVE
AN ARTICLE, YOU CAN JOAN LOAD
IT, A --OU CAN DOWNLOAD IT,
CALLED THE THREE IMPAIR TIFFS
OF HEALTH CARE REFORM.
WITHOUT ACHIEVING THESE IMPAIR
TIFFS THEN WE CANNOT I --
IMPERATIVES THEN WE CANNOT
EXPAND ACCESS TO QUALITY CARE.
NOW THE THREE IS DECREASING
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, HOW MUCH
MONEY WE PUT INTO BUREAUCRACY
AS OPPOSED TO PATIENT CARE,
INCENTIVIZING HEALTHY LIFESTYLE.
PUT DIFFERENTLY, IF PEOPLE
INSIST ON SMOKING AND DRINKING
IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW MUCH WE
THROW AT HEALTH CARE WE ARE
ALWAYS TRYING TO CATCH UP WITH
DISEASE AS OPPOSED TO PREVENTING IT.
AND LASTLY, COST TRANSPARENCY.
SOMEONE GOING IN FOR KNEE
SURGERY NEEDS TO KNOW HOW MUCH
HER BILL WILL BE BEFORE SHE
GOES IN AS OPPOSED TO LEARNING
ABOUT IT TWO MONTHS LATER WHEN
SHE GETS THE BILL.
IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US,
THEREFORE, TO ACHIEVE OUR GOALS
OF COST CONTAINMENT TO PROVIDE
ACCESS TO QUALITY CARE TO WORK
THROUGH THESE THREE
IMPERATIVES.
SO THE BILL WE PASSED, I GUESS,
H.R. 3962, ON THE FACE OF IT
DOES NOT CONTROL -- DOES NOT
ACHIEVE THESE THREE IMPERATIVES.
IF YOU ARE GOING TO DECREASE
ADMINISTRATIVE COST,OU DON'T
DO IT BY CREATING 111 NEW
BUREAUCRACIES, BOARDS AND
COMMISSIONS.
I MEAN, IT'S JUST LAUGHABLE TO
THINK WE ARE GOING TO PUT THAT
MUCH MORE MONEY INTO
ADMINISTRATION, BUILD THAT MANY
MORE BUILDINGS, HIRE THAT MANY
MORE PEOPLE AND AT THE
TIME WE ARE SAYING WE ARE
DECREASING ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.
THERE IS VERY LITTLE IN THE
BILL THAT INCENTIVIZES HEALTHY
LIFESTYLES.
YOU CAN THAT THOSE
PROVISIONS WEAKEN THE ONES THAT
ARE IN EFFECT.
LASTLY, THERE IS NOT A LOT THAT
HELPS TRANSPARENCY.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WILL
ENCOURAGE COST TRANSPARENCY IS
THE USE OF HEALTH SAVINGS
ACCOUNTS AND NOW HEALTH SAVINGS
ACCOUNTS ARE XED AS THEY HAVE
NOT BEEN BEFORE.
SO IT'S NOT SURPRISING IF THESE
THREE IMPERATIVES ARE NOT
ADDRESSED THAT WE CAN SAY THAT T BEING CONTROLLED.
NOW, BY THE WAY, IT'S NOT JUST
ME WHO SAID THAT COST
BEING CONTROLLED.
WE ALSO HAVE HERE A QUOTE FROM
"THE WASHINGTON POST."
WE HAVE A QUOTE FROM "THE
WASHINGTON TIMES."
IN THE "POST" IT SAYS IT DOES
NOT DO ENOUGH TO CONTROL COSTS
AND IT IS NOT FUNDED IN A
SUSTAINABLE WAY.
THE HEADLINE FROM "THE NEW YORK
TIMES," I THINK THIS WAS FROM
NOVEMBER 7, DEMOCRATS ARE --
MAYBE THE 10TH, DEMOCRATS RAISE
ALARMS OVER HEALTH BILL COS.
OVER THE COST OF THIS HEALTH BILL.
THAT'SO IMPORTA
YOU CAN LOOK IN ANY HARK
SYSTEM, IF YOU DON'T
EFFECTIVELY CONTROL C
EVENTUAL ACCESS TO QUALITY
CARE SUFFERS.
I'VE BEEN LIVING THIS FOR 20 YEARS.
I JUST -- IN MY LIFE WE KNOW THIS TO BE TRUE.
AND SO HERE WE SEE FROM A
COUPLE DIFFERENT SOURCES, "THE
POST" AND "THE TIMES" THAT THIS
BILL DOES NOT DO ENOUGH TO
CONTROL COST.
NOW, IT TURNS OUT THAT IT ISN'T
JUST "THE POST" AND "THE TIMES"
THAT HAVE SUCH CONCERNS,
THERE'S AN ARTICLE ON REUTERS
AND REUTERS SAY THAT CHINA IS
NOW QUESTIONING THE COST OF OUR
U.S. HEALTH CARE REFORM.
SINCE CHINA BUYS SO MUCH OF OUR
DEBT, IT TURNS OUT THEY HAVE A
VESTED INTEREST IN MAKING SURE
THAT WE HAVE OUR FINANCIAL
HOUSE IN ORDER.
AND SO TO READ THE ARTICLE FROM
REUTERS, GUESS WHAT, IT TURNS
OUT THE CHINESE ARE CURIOUS
ABOUT PRESIDENT OBAMA'S HEALTH
CARE REFORM PLAN HOW IT WILL
IMPACT AMERICA'S HUGE FISCAL DEFICIT AND THE GOVERNMENT
OFFICIALS ARE USING PRESIDENT
OBAMA'S ASIAN TRIP AS AN
OPPORTUNITY TO ASK DETAILED
QUESTIONS, BORDER PLATE
ASSURANC APPARENTLY NOT
CUTTING IT.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR WE
AS AN AMERICAN PEOPLE AND OUR
COUNTRY TO LOOK AT THE BILL
THAT WAS JUST PASSED, THAT IS
GOING OVER TO THE SENATE AND TO
ANALYZE HOW WELL DOES IT
CONTROL COSTS?
ARE THE CHINESE CORRECT, "THE
WASHINGTON POST," "THE NEW YORK
TIMES," ARE THEIR ARTICLES CORRECT?
OR DOES IT INDEED ACTUALLY
CONTROL COSTS AND EVERYBODY
ELSE IS A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED
ABOUT IT?
WELL, THAT'S -- LET'S GO INTO
THAT.
FIRST, REMBER OUR THREE
IMPERATIVES.
YOU HAVE TO DECREASE
ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, YOU HAVE
TO INCENTIVIZE HEALTHY
LIFESTYLES, AND YOU HAVE TO PUT
IN COST TRANSPARENCY.
DO SO.
NOW, IT TURNS OUT WHEN THE
PRESIDENT TALKS ABOUT
PREVENTIVE MEDICINES, ONE OF
THE DIRTY LITTLE SECRETS OF
THIS, AND AS A PHYSICIAN I CAN
THINK OF THIS, IF YOU THINK
ABOUT A COLONOSCOPY, IF WE DO A
COLONOSCOPE, IT COSTS THE
SYSTEM A LITTLE BIT MORE FOR
THOSE OVER 50.
NOW, IF YOU FIND A POLYP AND
REMOVE IT, IT'S A GOOD THING.
BUT IT DOESN'T SAVE MONEY.
BUT THERE ARE SOME THINGS YOU
CAN DO THAT WILL SAVE MONEY.
IF YOU CAN GET SOMEONE TO STOP
SMOKING, IT ACTUALLY SAVES THE
SYSTEM MONEY.
IT ALSO HELPS THEM IN TERMS OF
THEIR HEALTH.
IF YOU CAN GET SOMEONE TO LOSE
WEIGHT IT ACTUALLY SAVES THE
SYSTEM MONEY.
GENERAL MOTORS DID A STUDY,
THEY GOT SO MANY EMPLOYEES THEY
CAN DO THIS SORT OF THING AND
THEY FOUND THAT FOR EVERY 10
POUNDS THAT AN EMPLOYEE LOST
THAT THEIR HEALTH CARE COST
WENT DOWN SIGNIFICANTLY.
IF THE PERSON HAD HIGH BLOOD
PRESSURE AND THEY LOST 10
POUNDS, THE BLOOD PRESSURE GOT BETTER.
THEY REQUIRED LESS MEDICINE.
IF THEY HAD DIABETES, THE
DIABETES BECAME
CONTROL OR IN SOME CASES
DIABETES WOULD GO COMPLETELY AWAY.
NOW THERE ARE WAYS YOU CAN
INCENTIVIZE HEALTHY LIFESTYLES. UNDETHE CURRENT LAW,
COMPANIES ARE ALLOWED TO
DECREASE BY UP TO 20% THE
PREMIUMS THEY CHARGE THEIR
EMPLOYEES IF THE EMPLOYEE
PARTICIPATES IN A WELLNESS PROGRAM.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, SAFEWAY, WHICH
IS A LARGE GROCERY STORE CHAIN
ACROSS THE UNITED STATES, HAD A
PROGRAM WHERE THEY WILL
DECREASE THEIR PREMIUM BY 20%
FOR THOSE EMPLOYEES WHO
PARTICIPATE IN A SMOKING
CESSATION PROGRAM.
WHEN THEY DO SO THEY FIND THAT
PEOPLE SURPRISE, SURPRISE, STOP
SMOKING.
SIMILARLY, IF SOMEONE
EXERCISE PROGRAM OR DIETARY
PROGRAM TO LOSE WEIGHT AND IF
THEY LOSE WEIGHT, IF I RECALL,
THE PERSON JUST HAS TO JOIN THE
SMOKING CESSATION PROGRAM,
DON'T HAVE TO STOP SMOKING, BUT
JUST AS IT TURNS OUT PEOPLE IF
EXPOSED TO INFORMATION ACT ON
THAT INFORMATION AND THEY
ADJUST THEIR LIFESTYLE.
SO EITHER BY EXERCISE PROGRAM,
A DIETITIAN OR BY SMOKING
CESSATION PROGRAMS, BY
PARTICIPATING IN THESE THINK
WILL LOSE WEIGHT AND SAFEWAY
HAS KEPT THEIROST FOR THEIR
HEALTH INSURANCE CONSTANT WHERE
THERE HAS BEEN ABOUT A 7% TO
10% INFLATION RATE OVER THE
UNITED STATES.
I JUST M WITH A COMPANY BASED
IN MY HOMETOWN OF BATON ROUGE,
AND THEY HAVE HAD ABOUT A 10%
INFLATION RATE.
BUT THE LAST TWO YEARS AGO THEY
INSTITUTED A PROGRAM WHERE THEY
FIRST HAD ALL THEIR EMPLOYEES
COME IN FOR A HEALTH
ASSESSMENT. LAST YEAR THEY HAD ALL THEIR
EMPLOYEES COME IN FOR A HEALTH
ASSESSMENT.
FOR EXAMPLE, DO YOU SMOKE, ARE
YOU OVERWEIGHT, BUT ALSO A
PHYSICAL EXAM.
NEXT YEAR THEY ARE PUTTING IN
AS A COVER BENEFIT A SMOKING
CESSATION PROGRAM.
AND THEN TWO YEARS FROM NOW --
THIS IS IS A FOUR-YEAR PROCESS
-- TWO YEARS FROM NOW THEY ARE
GOING TO BE ALLOWED -- THEY ARE
GOING TO DECREASE PREMIUMS FOR
THOSWHO PARTICIPATE IN THESE
SMOKING CESSATION PROGRAMS.
THEIR PREMIUM COSTS, WHICH HAVE
BEEN INCREASING 7% TO 10% PER
YEAR, IS PROJECTED TO RISE ONLY
3% PER YEAR WHEN THEY INSTITUTE
THE FULL PROGRAM.
SO BY PUTTING IN OR
INCENTIVIZING HEALTHY
LIFESTYLES, THEY ARE GOING TO
LOWER THEIR INFLATION RATE TO
3% PER YEAR.
NOW, H.R. 3962 ACTUALLY WEAKENS
THESE PROVISIONS.
REPUBLICAN A
IN COMMITTEE WOULD HAVE
INCREASED THE AMOUNT AN
EMPLOYEE COULD SAVE IF SHE
PARTICIPATED IN A WELLNESS
PROGRAM.
BUT THESE WERE DEFEATED
BASICALLY ON PARTY LINE VOTES.
SIMILARLY, THERE IS A
DISASSOCIATION IN H.R. 3962
FROM WHAT A COMPANY CAN DO TO
INCENTIVIZE HEALTHY LIFESTYLES
AND HOW THIS PROVISION WORKS.
AS AN EXAMPLE, H.R. 3962
REQUIRES THAT A COMPANY PAY AT
LEAST 72.5% OF AN EMPLOYEE'S
INSURANCE
WELL, IF YOU GOT TO PAY AT
LEAST 72.5%, THAT LIMITS THE
AMOUNT YOU CAN DECREASE IN
ORDER TO INCENTIVIZE SOMEBODY
TO PARTICIPATE IN THEIR WELLNESS PROGRAM.
NOW, THE W YOU COULD SAY IT
IS, IF SOMEONE PARTICIPATES IN
A WELLNESS PROGRAM, YOU WOULD
PAY 72.5%.
BUT IF THEY DO NOT, YOU ARE
ALLOWED TO DECREASE YOUR
CONTRIBUTION TO 68%.
NOW, I'M NOT SAYING
TO STOP SMOKING.
I'M YING THEY HAVE TO FARPT
IN THE WELLNESS PROGRAM TO STOP
-- PARTICIPATE IN THE WELLNESS
PROGRAM TO STOP SMOKING.
SOME PEOPLE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO
BUT MOST PEOPLE GIVEN THE FACTS
WILL BE ABLE TO DO SO.
SO IF ONE OF OUR THREE
IMPERATIVES -- IF ONE OF OUR
THREE IMPERATIVES IS LOWERING
HEALTH CARE COSTS, IS TO
INCENTIVIZE HEALTHY LIFESTYLE,
WE SEE SOME OF THE PROGRAMS
WHICH ARE NOW WORKING WELL ARE
-- OR GUTTED OR MADE LESS ABLE
TO WORK EFFECTIVELY UNDER THE
BILL WE JUST PASSED.
.
AS AS PHYSICIAN, I WILL TELL YOU
WHAT IS DRIVING THE COST OF
HEALTH CARE IN THE UNITED STATES
IS THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH
DIABETES, HIGH BLOOD PRESSURE,
AND STROKE.
THE PREVALENCE OF THESE DISEASES
IS MUCH MORE IN OUR COUNTRY,
THAT THERE IS ONE ARTICLE OUT
THERE THAT THE DIFFERENTIAL
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND
EUROPE IS BECAUSE THE INCREASED
EXPENSE OF TREATING THESE
DISEASES SUCH AS DIABETES, HIGH
CHOLESTEROL, STROKE, HEART
DISEASE, THEY ALL COME UNDER A
METABOLIC SYNDROME, IF I'M
ALLOWED TO SPEAK AS A PHYSICIAN.
IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO I
SENTTIVIZE A HEALTHY LIFESTYLE,
THEN WE WILL NEVER ACHIEVE ONE
OF OUR PRINCIPLE THREE
WHICH IS TO CONTROL COSTS.
BECAUSE AGAIN WORKING IN A
PUBLIC HOSPITAL AGAIN, I HAVE
LEARNED IF YOU DO NOT CONTROL
COSTS, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE
ADEQUATE RESOURCES TO EXPAND
ACCESS TO QUALITY CARE.
AND ACCORDING TO THE INDEPENDENT
SOURCES, THE "WASHINGTON POST,"
"NEW YORK TIMES", CHINA, THIS
BILL BEFORE US HAS SIGNIFICANT
ISSUES WITH REGARD TO ITS
ABILITY TO CONTROL COSTS.
INDEED, CENTERS FOR MEDICARE AND
MEDICAID SERVICES, THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT IS ALREADY PAYING FOR
MEDICARE, THE HEALTH CARE
PROGRAM FOR FOLKS 65 AND ABOVE
AND A LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR
MEDICAID, THE STATE FEDERAL
PROGRAM FOR THE POOR IN EACH
STATE.
AND THERE IS A NEW STUDY, U.S.
GOVERNMENT CENTERS FOR MEDICARE
AND MEDICAID SERVICES, SAID THAT
THE HEALTH CARE REFORMBILL
RECENTLY PASSED IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES WILL INCREASE,
WILL INCREASE HEALTH CARE
SPENDING TO 21.3% OFO
DOMESTIC PRODUCT COMPARED TO
20.8% UNDER CURRENT LAW.
BENDING THE CURVE THE WRONG WAY.
IF THE PRESIDENT SAYS WE DO
NOT
THAT COSTS WILL DOUBLE, AS IT
TURNS OUT UNDER THE REFORM
PACKAGE PASSED A WEEK AGO IN
THIS CHAMBER, WILL COST MORE
THAN DOUBLE.
AS CRAZY AS IT SOUNDS, THE
REFORM BILL WE PASSED, ACORDING
TO THE INDEPENDENT CENTERS FOR
MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES,
THE REFORM WILL COST MORE THAN
THE STATUS QUO.
AND I KEP SAYING THAT BECAUSE
THE PRESIDENT SAYS WE HAVE TO
CONTROL COSTS.
AND ACCORDING TO THE FEDERAL
MORE THAN THE STATUS QUO.
AT A MINIMUM, AT A MINIMUM,
REFORM SHOULDN'T COST MORE THAN
STATUS QUO AND SHURNT BEND THE
CURVE THE WRONG WAY BUT THE
RIGHT WAY.
IN ADDITION, THEY GIVE CLEAR
COST ESTIMATES THAN THE ONE
PREVIOUSLY GIVEN BY THE
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE.
THE 10-YEAR COST OF THE PLAN WAS
$894 BILLION, BUT THE ANALYSIS
INCLUDED VERY LITTLE GOVERNMENT
SPENDING.
ACCORDING TO THE CENTERS FOR
MEDICAID AND MEDICARE SERVICES,
THE HOUSE APPROACH WILL COST $1
TRILLION FROM 2013 TO 219 OR
SOME $140 BILLION A YEAR WHEN
PUT INTO EFFECT.
SO, IN SEVEN YEARS, IT WILL COST
$1 TRILLION.
CLEARLY, IF THE GOALS OF HEALTH
CARE REFORM ARE TO CONTROL COSTS
SO WE CAN EXPAND ACCESS TO
QUALITY CARE, ACCORDING TO OUR
GOVERNMENT, THE CHINESE
GOVERNMENT, TWO NEWSPAPERS, THIS
BILL DOES NOT DO
WHAT DOES IT D?
ONE THING IT DOES IS IT TAKES
POWER AWAY FROM PATIENTS AND IT
TURNS IT OVER TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
NOW, IT'S GOING TO SOUND LIKE
RHETORIC, SO
AS A PHYSICIAN WHO HAS WORKED
WITH THE UNINSURED, I LEARNED
THAT WHEN YOU PUT THE PATIENT IN
THE MIDDLE OF THE PROCESS, IF
YOU SAID THE MOST IMPORTANT HERE
IS THE PATIENT, THEN ACTUALLY
YOU TEND TO LOWER COSTS AND HAVE
IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, THAT
PROGRAM, WHICH LOWERS SOMEONE'S
PREMIUMS 20% IF SHE PARTICIPATES
IN A WELLNESS PROGRAM, IT PUTS
THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR SOMEONE'S
HEALTH ON THE PERSON WITH THE
GREATEST ABILITY TO MAKE A
CHANGE.
THAT IS THE PATIENT.
IF SHE IS FINANCIALLY REWARDED,
IF SHE IS FINANCIALLY REWARDED
FOR HAVING A HEALTHIER
LIFESTYLE, AS IT TURNS OUT,
SHE'LL HAVE A HEALTHIER
LIFESTYLE.
NOT ONLY WILL SHE BE HEALTHIER,
SHE WILL HAVE LOWER
FRANKLY, THOSE LOWER COSTS AMONG
MILLIONS OF PATIENTS, IF YOU
WILL, LOWERS THE COST FOR THE
SYSTEM.
THERE'S ONE WAY TO EXPLAIN THIS.
THERE IS SOMETHING CALLED HEALTH
SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.
IN A
PUT THE PATIENT IN THE MIDDLE F
THE PROCESS IN THE FOLOWING
FASHION.
THE HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT TAKES
THE MONEY THAT A FAMILY WOULD
NORMALLY SPEND FOA HEALTH CARE
PREMIUM, IT SLICES OFF A PORTION
OF IT AND PUTS IT INTO A BANK ACCOUNT.
WITH A TRADITIONAL INSURANCE
POLICY AT THE BEGINNING OF THE
YEAR, A FAMILY OF FOUR PUTS UP
$12,000 AND AT THE END OF THE
YEATHEY HAVE NOT SEEN A DOCTOR
AND PUT UP ANOTHER $12,000 FOR
AND EVERY YEAR THEY PUT UP
ANOTHER $12,000.
IN A HEALTH SAVINGS ACOUNT, YOU
SLICE OFF A PORTION AND PUT IT
INTO AN ACCOUNT.
THAT MONEY COMES FROM THE MONEY
YOU WOULD ORDINARILY BE
SPENDING IT FOR A PREMIUM.
BUT INSTEAD, YOU PUT IT IN THIS
BANK ACCOUNT.
INSTEAD OF ASKING THE INSURANCE
COMPANY TO PAY FOR A FLU SHOT,
YOU PAY FOR IT OUT OF THE BANK
ACCOUNT.
INSTEAD OF PAYING FOR ARTHRITIS
MEDICINE, YOU PAY FOR IT OUT OF
THE BANK ACCOUNT.
THE ADVANTAGE IS, AT THE END OF
THE YEAR, IF YOU HAVE MONEY LEFT
OVER, INSTEAD OF LOSING IT, IT
ROLLS OVER UNTIL THE NEXT YEAR.
OR IF YOU HAVE A FAMILY MEMBER
WHOSE COSTS ARE EXCESSIVE, YOU
CAN DONATE PORTIONS OF YOUR
HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT TO YOUR
FAMILY MEMBER.
SO WITH THAT MONEY, IT IS MONEY
THAT YOU ARE INCENTIVIZED TO
SPEND WISELY.
TWO PATIENTS COME TO MIND -
THREE PATIENTS.
THERE IS ONE PATIENT WHO HAS A
TRADITIONAL INSURANCE POLICY AND
A VERY NICE WOMAN.
AND SHE HAS AN EXPENSIVE POLICY
AND SHE IS A WOMAN OF MEANS AND
SHE SAYS I NEVER LOOK AT THE BILL.
IF THE DOCTOR WRITES ME A
NAME-BRAND DRUG, MY INSURANCE
PAYS FOR IT.
WHEN IGET A BILL FROM E
HOSPITAL, I DON'T LOOK AT IT
BECAUSE THE INSURANCE PAYS FOR
IT.
BECAUSE THE INSURANCE PAYS FOR
EVERYTHING, SHE LIKES THE
INSURANCE POLICY BUT HAS THE
MONEY TO PAY FOR IT.
CONTRAST THAT WITH THE GENTLEMAN
I'M ABOUT TO DESCRIBE.
HE SAYS I WENT TO MY DOCTOR AND
HE WROTE A PRESCRIPTIOFOR A
MEDICINE THAT I KNEW BY
EXPERIENCE WOULD COST $159.
NOW, NOTICE, HE DIDN'T SAY $160,
BUT SAID $159 BECAUSE HE IS
PAYING THIS OUT OF HIS ACOUNT.
I SAID, DOCTOR, I HAVE A HEALTH
SAVINGS ACCOUNT, DO YOU MIND
WRITING SOMETHING CHEAPER?
AND HE WROTE IT FOR GENERIC.
WHY DIDN'T THE DOCTOR W
THEEN ERIC IN THE FIRST PLACE?
WHO IS MOST RESPONSIBLE FOR AN
INDIVIDUAL'S HEALTH?
THE PERSON MOST RESPONSIBLE FOR
AN INDIVIDUAL'S HEALTH IS THAT
INDIVIDUAL.
AND SO, JUST LIKE IF I WERE TO
GO TO TARGET OR WAL-MART AND SAY
OK, I'M GOING TO BUY SCHOOL
UNIFORMS FOR MY CHILDREN, IT'S
NOT TARGET'S RESPONSIBILITY TO
WAL-MART.
IT IS MY RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE
WHO IS CHEAPER AND THEN TO GO TO
THE PLACE WHO GIVES ME THE BEST
VALUE FOR MY MONEY.
AND FRANKLY, WITH THAT
RESPONSI
RESPONDED.
INSTEAD OF GETTING THE MEDICINE
THAT COST $159, HE GOT THE
MECINE THAT COST $1 -- $20.
THE SYSTEM SAVED $139.
IF YOU MULTIPLY THAT, THEN THE
SYSTEM SAFES MILLIONS AND EVEN
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
WE HAVE GONE FROM THE INDIVIDUAL
PATIENT, LET'S TALK ABOUT A
STUDY.
KAISER FAM
OF CENTER GROUP RKTS BUT A GOOD
GROUP, THEY COMPARED THE COST
FOR A FAMILY OF FOUR WHICH HAD A
HEALTH SAVINGS ACOUNT WITH A
CATASTROPHIC POLICY ON TOP, SO
IF THEY HAD A LIVER TRANSPLANT
THAT EXCEEDED THE AMOUNT OF
MONEY IN THEIR ACOUNT, THE
CATASTROPHIC POLICY PICKS IT UP
ON THE TOP END AND COMPARED IT
WITH THE COST OF A TRADITIONAL
INSURANCE POLICY FOR A FAMILY OF
FOUR.
THEY FOUND THAT THE FAMILY OF
FOUR WITH THE HEALTH SAVINGS
ACCOUNT AND THE CATASTROPHIC
POLICY ON TOP, THEY FOUND THAT
THAT FAMILY'S COST OF THAT
H.S.A. AND CATASTROPHIC POLICY
WAS 30% CHEAPE THAN THE COST OF
THE TRADITIONAL INSURANCE POLICY
FOR A FAMILY OF FOUR.
AND THEY FOUND THAT BOTH
FAMILIES USED
SERVICES AS FREQUENTLY.
SO WHAT WE HAVE HERE, IF OUR
GOAL OF HEALTH CARE REFORM ARE
TO CONTROL COSTS TO EXPAND
ACCESS TO QUALITY CARE BY
LOWERING PREMIUMS -- THE KAISER
FAMILY FOUNDATION FOUND THAT THE
FAMILY WITH THE H.S.A. AND
CATASTROPHIC POLICY, THEIR COSTS
WERE 30% CHEAPER COMPARED TO
TRADITIONAL INSURANCE AND ALSO
FOUND THAT 27% OF THOSE PEOPLE
WERE PREVIOUSLY UNINSURED.
50% OF THESE PEOPLE HAD FAMILY
INCOMES OF $50,000 OR LESS AND
60% OF SUCH FAMILIES HAD FAMILY
INCOMES OF $70,000 OR LESS.
SO BY CONTROLLING COSTS, THE
H.S.A., CATASTROPHIC POLICY, 30%
CHEAPER.
BY CONTROLLING COSTS, THOSE
PEOPLE WHO WERE PREVIOUSLY
UNINSURED, 27% OF THE FOLKS WITH
THESE H.S.A.'S WERE PREVIOUSLY
UNINSURED, ARE ABLE TO PURCHASE
INSURANCE AND WITH THE INSURANCE
THEY ACCESS PREVENTIVE SERVICES
AS FREQUENTLY AS THOSE WITH
TRADITIONAL POLICIES.
SO THE GOALS OF REFORM WERE ACHIEVED.
LOWERED COSTS, EXPANDED ACCESS
TO QUALITY CARE.
NOW I HAVE BEEN JOINED BY MY
FRIEND, DR. FLEMING, WHO HAS A
NICE ANECDOTE.
MR. ARCURI: I SPEN
FROM THE COMMITTEE ON RULES FOR
FILING UNDER TH
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
CLERK WILL REPORT THE TITLE.
THE CLERK: REPORT TO ACOMPANY
HOUSE RESOLUTION 908, RESOLUTION
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF
THE BILL H.R. 2781, TO AMEND THE
WILD AND SCENEIC RIVERS'S ACT AS
COMPONENTS OF THE NATIONAL WILD
AND SEEN SCENEIC RIVER SYST.
REPORT TO ACCOMPANY HOUSE
RESOLUTION 909, RESOLUTION
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF
THE BILL H.R. 3791 TO AMEND
SECTIONS 33 AND 34 OF THE
FEDERAL FIRE AND PREVENTION
CONTROL ACT AN FOR OTHER
PURPOSES.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE:
REFERRED TO THE HOUSE CALENDAR
AND ORDERED PRINTED.
MR. AR
AND I THANK THE GENTLEMAN FOR
THE COURTESY OF YIELDING.
MR. CASSIDY: I YIELD TO DR.
FLEMING.
WE WERE DISCUSSING COSTS.
IT IS SO ESSENTIAL.
WOULD YOU SHARE THAT ANECDOTE
WHEN YOUR GROUP WENT TO H.S.A.'S
BECAUSE THE TWO THINGS I HAVE
DISCUSSED SO FAR HAS BEEN THE -
INCENTIVIZING HEALTH AND
WELLNESS AND PEOPLE WITH COSTS,
YOUR ANECDOTE C
AND CAN I ASK YOU TO THEIR THAT?
MR. FLEMING: I THANK DR.
CASSIDY, MY COLLEAGUE FROM
LOUISIANA, DOING THE SPECIAL
ORDER TODAY AND AN OPPORTUNITY
TO SPEAK ON THAT VERY SUBJECT.
YES.
WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS THE
CASE IN WHICH MY NONMEDICAL
COMPANIES SEEING HEALTH CARE
PREMIUMS RISING AN AVERAGE OF
10% TO 15% P YEAR AND WE FOUND
THAT TO BE AN UNSUSTAINABLE
INCREASE.
AND WE BEGAN TO ANALYZE WHAT ARE
THE CHOICES, WHAT ARE THE
OPTIONS.
MAYBE WE WOULD PAY LESS OF THE
PREMIUMS.
PERHAPS WE WOULD STOP THE
INSURANCE ALL TOGETHER.
WE WEREN'T SURE WHAT WE COULD
DO.
AND THEN I RECALL SOMETNG, AT
THAT TIME WAS A BRAND NEW
CONCEPT AND THAT WAS A HEALTH
SAVINGS ACCOUNT WHERE YOU LEFT
THE DEDUCTIBLE OF THE POLICY
A HIGHER LEVEL, SAVING PREMIUM
COST.
BUT THEN IN TURN, PUT THE
INCREMENTAL INCREASE THAT COMES
UP TO WHAT THE PREMIUM WOULD BE
INTOAL HEALTH SAVINGS ACOUNT.
SO WE BEGAN THAT ABOUT SIX YEARS
AGO.
WE BROUGHT THE DEDUCTIBLES UP TO
$3,000 AND EMPLOYEES WOULD GET
AS MUCH AS $50 A MONTH PUT INTO
THE HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT WHERE
THEY COULD PURCHASE ANY HEALTH
CARE SERVICE OR ITEM THEY NEEDED
PRE-TAX AND EXPLAINING THIS TO
MY EMPLOYEES HOWEVER AS WE
GATHERED THEM TOGETHER, I WANTED
TO BE SURE EVERYONE WAS ON THE
SAME PAGE.
I SUGGESTED TO THEM THIS IS THE
WAY WE PROBABLY WOULD GO BUT I
WANTED TO GET THE INPUT AS TO
THEIR CONCERNS.
AND WE HAD A LADY WHO SAID, YOU
KNOW, THE PROBLEM
MY INHALERS IF I HAVE TO PAY FOR
THEM OUT OF A HEALTH SAVINGS
ACCOUNT EACH MONTH, IT WILL COST
ME $150 A MONTH.
AND TRUE ENOUGH, THIS WOULD COME
OUT OF MY HEALTH SAVINGS
ACCOUNT, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT
MY HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT WOULD
BE ABLE TO WITHSTAND THAT.
I SAID, WELL, LET'S THINK THIS
THROUGH.
PERHAPS YOU SHOULD CONSIDER
DOING A SMOKING CESSATION
PROGRAM, STOP SMOKG AL
TOGETHER AND THROUGH AWAY YOUR
INHALERS AND SAVE MONEY ON THE
CIGARETTES AND SAVE MONEY ON THE
MONEY ACCUMLUATING IN YOUR
HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT.
MR. CASSIDY: BY CONNECTING HER
WITH COST, IF YOU WILL, YOU
INCENTIVIZING A HEALTHY
LIFESTYLE.
.
MR. FLEMING: YOU'RE EXACTLY
RIGHT, DR. CASSIDY.
WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS SAVING
HER MONEY AND SAVING HER LIFE.
THERE'S NO QU
DIRECT CORRELATION, AN INVERSE
CORRELATION BETWEEN THE USE OF
TOBACCO AND HEALTH BY THE SAME
CONTEXT IF YOU STOP SMOKING
THEN LIFE SPAN INCREASES.
SO WE FOUND IN VERY REAL TERMS
THAT IT SAVED PREMIUM COSTS,
BOTH TO THE EMPLOYER AND TO THE
INSTILLING THE
HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT AND
ATTACHING BEHAVIOR WITH COST.
AND EVEN TODAY, WE RECEIVED
NOTICE ON OUR MOST RECENT NEW
POLICY FOR THE COMING YEAR, THE
INCREASE IS 3.5%, WHICH IS
REALLY AMAZING
HEALTH INSURANCE POLICIES.
MR. CASSIDY: IF THE GENTLEMAN
WILL YIELD.
YOU SAID THAT ALL OF YOUR
EMPLOYEES IN YOUR GROUP ARE ON
HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS NOW?
MR. FLEMING: YES.
MR. CASSIDY: IF YOU CONTINUE TO
YIELD, WE HEAR THAT ONLY HEALTH
SAVINGS ACCOUNTS ARE ONLY FOR
THE WEALTHY.
YOU HEARD ME SAY THAT 27% WERE
PREVIOUSLY UNINSURED.
SO AS I
BACK NOW, YOUR BUSINESS IS A
SERVICE BUSINESS, SO I ASSUME
THAT PEOPLE ARE OF MODERATE
INCOME AND YET THIS IS A POLICY
THEY HAVE ALL CHOSEN.
SO UNLESS YOU TELL ME THAT ALL
THESE FOLKS ARE WEALTHY, IWILL
AST INDEED THIS IS
SOMETHING THAT WORKS FOR MIDDLE
AMERICA, AND I YIELD BACK.
MR. FLEMING: WELL, THIS IS A
FAST FOOD BUSINESS.
IT'S A STEEP PYRAMID.
MIDDLE MANAGEMENT D THEN A
FEW HIGH-INCOME FOLKS.
REMEMBER, THE EMPLOYER IS
PUTTING THE MONEY IN THE HEALTH
SAVIS ACCOUNT.
NOW, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE
PATIENT OR EMPLOYEE CAN'T ALSO
PUT SOME MONEY IN.
BUT THE LIONS SHARE WAS PUT IN
BY US AND THEN AFTER SIX YEARS
OR SO THOSE THAT HAVE TAKEN
GOOD CARE OF THEIR HEALTH AND
NOT WASTED THE HEALTH CARE
DOLLARS NOW HAVE SAVED AS MUCH
AS $15,000 TO $20,000 IN THEIR
FAMILY HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT
WHICH IS TRIPLE IF
QUADRUPLE THE PREMIUM ON THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE POLICY.
MR. CASSIDY: YOU SAY PEOPLE
THAT ARE WISE WITH THEIR HEALTH
CARE DOLLAR AND INSTEAD OF
USING THEIR DOLLAR IT ROLLS
OVER AND ACCUMULATES, NOW, THEY
PUT THAT MUCH LESS
FOLLOWING YEAR FOR THOSE
PARTICULAR FAMILIES, THEIR COST
OF INSURANCE, IF YOU WILL, IS
DECREASING ANNUALLY, I WOULD
ASSUME?
MR. FLEMING: OF COURSE, THE
PREMIUMS STAY EVEN.
BUT WHAT HAPPENS IS THE CASH
ACCUMULATES AND IT ACCUMULATES
TO THE POINT WHERE THERE'S
ESSENTIALLY NO DEDUCTIBLE, NO
WHATEVER HEALTH CARE NEEDS YOU
HAVE, THERE IS ALWAYS PUTTING
MONEY IN THE BANK AND WHAT'S
INTERESTING IS WHATEVER YOU GET
OUT OF TT PLAN AND WENT TO
SOMETHING ELSE.
LET'S SAY YOU WENT TO 65 -- YOU
HIT 65 AND WENT TO MEDICARE,
LET'S SAY YOU DECIDE NOT TO
HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE ANYMORE,
FOR WHATEVER REASON, YOU KEEP
THAT MONEY.
YOU CAN USE IT INDEFINITELY, NO PLAN
YOU MIGHT BE ON.
MR. CASSIDY: IF THE GENTLEMAN WILL YIELD.
IF I CONTRAST YOUR
CENTER APPROACH WHERE YOU PUT
THE PERSON MOST RESPONSIBLE,
THE PATIENT, AND THE DOLLARS
SHE WOULD SPEND FOR HER HEALTH
CARE AND IN SO DOING SHE
RESPONDED IN A RATIONAL AND
ECONOMIC WAY, SHE DIDN'T WANT
MORE INHALERS SO THEY STOPPED SMOKING.
CONTRAST THAT WITH THE BILL WE
PASSED A WEEK AGO IN WHICH NOW
THERE'S GOING TO BE A TAX ON
HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.
SO THE EXAMPLE I GAVE IF I MAY
CONTINUE IS WHERE THE PATIENT
ASKS FOR AN OVER-THE-COUNTER
GENERIC, INSTEAD OF THE
PRESCRIPTION MEDICINE, KNOWING
THAT THE ONE WAS AS GOOD
OTHER AND YET IN ONE COST --
AND ONE COST $21 AND ONE COST
$39 AND BY THE BILL PASSED BY
OUR COLLEAGUES ON THE DEMOCRATIC SIDE OF THE AISLE WE
ARE NOW GOING TO TAX THE
PURCHASE OF OVER-THE-COUNTER
MEDICINES WHEN THAT PURCHASE IS
MADE WITH HEALTH SAVINGS
ACCOUNTS?
MR. CASSIDY: IT SEEMS WE ARE
GOING BACKWARDS TO USE LESS
COSTLY DRUGS.
I YIELD.
MR. FLEMING: YOU KNOW,
CONGRESSMAN CASSIDY, I'VE
LOOKED AT THIS FOR MANY YEARS
IN TERMS OF BEING A FAMILY
PHYSICIAN, FIGURING OUT HOW TO
GET THE BEST COST CARE TO A
PATIENT DELIVERED.
D I'M SURE YOU HAVE IN YOUR
SPECIALIST ROLE BUT ALSO AS A
BUSINESS.
AND I'VE CONCLUDED OVER THE
YEARS, THERE'S ONLY TWO WAYS TO
CONTROL COST IN A HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.
EITHER YOU DO AS WE JUST DISCUSSED, YOU HAVE THE DOCTOR
AND THE PATIENT HAVE A STAKE IN
THE COST CONTROLS FOR
THEMSELVES OR AT LEAST
PARTICULARLY FOR THE PATIENT IN
WHICH CASE IS A DIVIDEND YOU
HAVE COST SAVINGS THROUGHOUT
THE SYSTEM.
OR YOU CREATE A GIANT, HIGHLY
BUREAUCRATIC SYSTEM TH
ENGINEERS MICROMANAGES LIFE
BEHAVIORS FROM TOP TO BOTTOM IN
WHICH THERE IS NO CONNECTION
BETWEEN A PATIENT AND
HER BEHAVIOR OR COST FOR THAT
MATTER.
AND FOR THAT SYSTEM TO BE
EFFECTIVE BECAUSE WE SEE AN
EXPONENTIAL GROWTH IN CONSUMER
PURCHASE BEHAVIOR AND THE
INFINITY DESIRE FOR VALUE
COMING OUT OF THE SYSTEM --
INFINITE DESIRE TORE VALUE
COMING OUT OF THE SYSTEM, WE
WANT TO GET EVERYTHING OUT OF A
SYSTEM, WHEN YOU HAVE THAT
SCENARIO THEN IT PUTS AN
INTENSE DEMAND ON THE
CONTROLLING ENTITY WHICH IN
THIS CASE IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
IT PUTS AN INTENSE PRESSURE
BURDEN TO FIGURE OUT WAYS OF
CONTROLLING COST.
AND THERE'S ONLY ONE WAY AT
THAT POINT TO DO IT.
THAT'S LONG LINES AND
RATIONING.
THAT IS THE ONLY WAY A SYSTEM
OF THAT SIZE HAS BEEN ABLE TO
CONTROL COST.
MR. CASSIDY: NOW, ON THE OTHER
HAND, IT DOES ATTEMPT TO PAY
FOR ITS EXPLODING COST.
BEFORE YOU WALKED IN, I
MENTIONED THE CENTERS FOR
MEDICARE AND MEDICAID SERVICES
FOUND THAT THE BILL THAT WAS
PASSED, ALTHOUGH 39 DEMOCRATS
JOINED REPUBLICANS IN OPPOSING
IT, IT STILL PASSED ON
BASICALLY A PARTY LINE VOTE,
THAT BECAUSE OF THAT BILL,
HEALTH CARE SPENDING WILL
INCREASE TO 21.3% OF G.D.P.
COMPARED TO CURRENT
WOULD BE LESS THAN THAT BY
20.8% WOULD BE UNDER CUR LAW.
AND BENDING THE COST CURVE THE
WRONG WAY, IF YOU WILL, WE'RE
YANKING ON THAT THING.
MR. FLEMING: RIGHT. MR. CASSIDY: THEY ARE TRYING TO
ATTEMPT TO PAY FOR IT.
IF THE GENTLEMAN WILL ALLOW ME
TO GO FORWARD, THEY ARE
CREATING $730 BILLION IN TAX
HIKES.
SOME PEOPLE HAVE CALLED THIS A
TAX BILL DISGUISED AS A HEALTH
CARE BILL.
$460 BILLION TAX ON SMALL
BUSINESSES AND HIGH EARNERS,
$135 BILLION EMPLOYER MANDATE
TAX, $33 BILLION INDIVIDUAL
MANDATE TAX.
YOU MENTIONED HOW YOU ARE A
SMALL BUSINESSMAN AS WELL AS A
PHYSICIAN.
I WANT TO YIELD TO YOU AND ASK
YOU IF YOU CAN COMM
THESE TAXES WOULD AFFECT YOU AS
A SMALL BUSINESS PERSON?
MR. FLEMING: WELL, IT WOULD A
TREMENDOUS IMPACT.
FOR WHATEVER REASON -- WELL,
LET ME BACK UP FOR A SECOND.
THIS HEALTH CARE BILL PROVIDES
THAT WHETHER IT'S A PUBLIC
OPTION, A GOVERNMENT-RUN
INSURANCE OR WHETHER IT'
PRIVATE INSURANCE PLAN, THEY
ALL HAVE TO GO THROUGH AN
EXCHANGE AND MEET CERTAIN
REQUIREMENTS AND
CERTIFICATIONS.
EVERY CONSTITUENCY OUT THERE IS
GOING TO BE KNOCKING ON OUR
DOORS IN WASHINGTON WANTING
THEIR AROMA THERIES OR
MASSAGE THERAPIES AND
EVERYTHING ELSE WHICH IS GOING
TO MAKE THE MINIMUM
REQUIREMENTS GO UP AND
THEREFORE THE COSTS.
I AS A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER,
WHEN I'M HAVING TO DECIDE ABOUT PURCHASING THESE REQUIRED
MINUTE MUMS AND MANDATES, AT
SOME POINT I MAY SAY I CAN'T
AFFORD IT, IN WHICH CASE I HAVE
TO OPT OUT OF THE HEALTH CARE
PLAN BUT I'LL STILL HAVE TO PAY
AN 8% PAYROLL TAX OR UP TO 8%
PAYROLL TAX.
SO EVEN NOT COVERING MY
EMPLOYEES WILL LEAD TO HIGHER COSTS.
AND AS SOON AS MY COSTS GO UP,
MY PROFITS GO DOWN, MY ABILITY
TO SUSTAIN BUSINESS WILL FADE,
AND I WILL -- THE FIRST THING I
WILL HAVE TO DO IS LAY PEOPLE
OFF OR CERTAINLY NOT HIRE
PEOPLE.
MR. CASSIDY: SO LAY PEOPLE OFF,
IT'S PROJECTED, I SEE, THAT
USING THE METHODOLOGY OF THE
WHITE HOUSE COUNCIL ON ECONOMIC
AD THAT THE TAX HIKES,
$730 BILLION IN TAX HIKES TO
ADDRESS THIS COST, WHICH BY THE
WAY INADEQUATELY ADDRESSES IT,
WOULD KILL 5.5
JOBS.
MR. FLEMING:ND IF THE
GENTLEMAN WILL YIELD FOR ONE
OTHER PART, THE TAXES ON
BUSINESSES DON'T STOP THERE.
WE HAVE WITH THE BUSH TAX CUTS
EXPIRING VERY SOON, THE
MARGINAL TAX RATES WILL UP
FROM 35% TO 39%.
AND THEN THIS BILL PROVIDES FOR
ANOTHER EXEYES TAX OF OVER 5%
-- EXCISE TAX OF OVER 5%.
SO THEY WILL INCREASE FROM 35%
TO 45%, PLUS THE 8% THAT WE
TALKED ABOUT TAXES THAT WILL
OCCUR ON PAYROLL EVEN IF THE
EMPLOYER DOES NOT HAVE OR ABLE
TO PURCHASE HEALTH CARE
INSURANCE.
SO JUST AN EXPLOSION OF COSTS
WITHOUT ANY RETURN ON
INVESTMENT AND, THEREFORE, THE
BUSINESS OWNER IN ORDER TO
REMAIN COMPETITIVE
, YOU KNOW, WILL HAVE TO REDUC
THE WORK FORCE.
MR. CASSIDY: SO THERE'S
MANDATES ON BUSINESSES AND
INDIDUALS.
THERE'S $430 BILLION ON NEW
TAXES AND $-- 5.5 MILLIONOBS
LOST?
MR. FLEMING: YES.
MR. CASSIDY: THAT'S A TRIFECTA
OF DISASTER.
WE ARE JOINED BY CONGRESSMAN SCALISE.
I WANT TO YIELD TO CONGRESSMAN
SCALISE BUT BEFORE SO I WILL
SAY THAT WE HAVE BEEN
DISCUSSING COSTS.
"THE WASHINGTON POST POST,"
"THE NEW YORK TIMES," THE
CHINESE GOVERNMENT, HAVE ALL
EXPRESSED DOUBTS THAT THIS BILL
WILL CONTROL COSTS.
AND FRANKLY IN FAIRNESS THERE
ARE 39 DEMOCRATS THAT VOTED
AGAINST THIS BILL AND SOME OF
THEM ALSO EXPRESSED CONCERNS
REGARDING THIS COST.
I'D LIKE TO YIELD TO YOU ON
YOUR THOUGHTS, PLEASE.
MR. SCALISE: I WANT TO THANK MY
COLLEAGUE FROM BATON ROUGE, IN
FACT, BOTH DOCTORS FROM
LOUISIANA WHO HAVE EXHIBITED SO
MUCH LEADERSHIP ON THIS BROADER
ISSUE OF HEALTH CARE REFORM.
BUT I THINK AS YOU POINTED OUT
WITH SO MANY -- WHAT SO
AMERICANS ARE FOUNDING OUT NOW
THEY ARE LOOKING AT THE DETAILS
OF THAT 1,990-PAGE BILL THAT WE
OPPOSED BUT PASSED THE HOUSE A
WEEK AGO IS THAT THEY ARE
REALIZING NOT ALL OF THE TAXES,
AS YOU POINTED OUT, OV
BILLION THAT WOULD CRIPPLE
SMALL BUSINESSES AND FAMILIES,
THE $500 BILLION CUTS IN
MEDICARE THAT OUR SENIORS KNOW
WILL LEAD ULTIMATELY TO
RATIONING OF HEALTH CARE AND
OTHER DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES,
BUT NOW THEY'RE SEEING THAT
ACTUALLY WHEN THIS WHOLE DEBATE
STARTED IT WAS ABOUT LOWERING
THE COST OF HEALTH CARE.
REALIZING THAT
SPERK PELOSI'S 1,990-PAGE OF
GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF HEALTH
CARE WILL INCREASE COSTS TO
HEALTH CARE WHICH IS THE
ULTIMATE IRONY AND REALLY THE
ULTIMATE KICK IN THE TEETH TO
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WHO WANT AS
WE WANT REAL HEALTH CARE REFORM
TO LOWER COST.
IN FACT, THE ALTERNATIVE BILL
THAT WE PRESENTED HERE ON THE
HOUSE FLOOR WHERE WE HAD A
RECORD VOTE HERE ON THE HOUSE
BILL THAT SAME DAY THAT SPEAKER
PELOSI'S BILL PASSED, OUR BILL
WOULD ACTUALLY REDUCE HEALTH
CARE COSTS BY 10%, SCORED BY
THE CON
OFFICE, WOULD HAVE ABSOLUTELY
NO TAX INCREASES AND NO CUTS TO
MEDICARE BUT ON THE OTHER SIDE
WE'RE SEEING MORE AND MORE NOW
HOW MANY COSTS ARE INCREASING.
IN FACT, WE JUST SAW A REPORT
THAT CAME OUT EARLIER THIS WEEK
THAT PRESCRIPTION DRUG PRICES
HAVE INCREASED THIS YEAR BY 10%
BECAUSE SOME OF THESE DRUG
COMPANIES THAT ARE SUPPOSEDLY
GOING TO HELP OUT WITH LOWERING
COSTS, WHAT THEY DID WAS THEY
JACKED UP THE COST 10% THIS
YEAR TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THE
IN THE ROAD
BY SPEAKER PELOSI'S GOVERNMENT
TAKEOVER. OUR
FAMILIES ACROSS THIS COUNTRY
THAT HAVE HEALTH CARE THAT THEY
LIKE REALIZING THAT THE BILL
WILL ACTUALLY TAKE AWAY
POTENTIALLY THEIR HEALTH CARE,
IT WILL ACTUALLY LEAD TO HIGHER
HEALTH CARE COSTS OVERALL AND
EVEN HIGHER PRE COSTS.
SO IT'S REALLY A DOUBLE WHAMMY
FOR AMERICAN FAMILIES WHO WERE
EXPECTING SOMETHING DIFFERENT
FROM THIS DEMOCRATICALLY
CONTROLLED CONGRESS. UNFORTUNATELY, WHAT THEY'RE
SEEING IS A 1,990-PAGE
GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF HEALTH
CARE THAT RAISES TAXES, CUTS
MEDICARE AND NOW INCREASE COSTS
FOR HEALTH CARE WHICH IS JUST
THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT AMERICANS
SO IT'S A VERY BIG
DISAPPOINTMENT.
AS MORE DETAILS COME OUT,
HOPEFULLY WE C
TRAIN AS IT'S MOVING OVER IN
THE SENATE FROM ACTUALLY
BECOMING LAW SO WE CAN
HEALTH CARE REFORM TO ADDRESS
PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS, SO
BRING IN MORE COMPETITION SO
FAMILIES CAN BUY ACROSS STATE
LINES, HAVE MEDICAL LIABILITY
REFORM WHICH WE ACTUALLY PUT IN
OUR BILL WHICH WOULD HAVE
REDUCE COSTS, SAVING AMERICAN
FAMILIES MILLIONS AND MILLIONS
OF DOLLARS EVERY YEAR.
AGAIN, I APPRECIATE YOUR LEADERSHIP.
MR. CASSIDY: THANK YOU.
MR. SCALISE: AND I YIELD BACK
MY TIME.
MR. CASSIDY: THERE'S A COUPLE
OF IRONIES HERE.
ONE IRON IS HE WE HAD TO DO THIS TO CONTROL COS.
AND COSTS THAT DOES NOT DO
ENOUGH TO CONTROL IT AND G.D.P.
AMOUNT GOING TO -- WOULD BE
MORE UNDER THIS BILL.
BUT THE OTHER IRONY, WE WERE
TOLD WE HAD TO DO THIS TO
PRESERVE JOBS.
AND YET IT'S ESTIMATED WE ARE
GOING TO LOSE 5.5 MILLION JOBS
RELATED TO THE $730 BILLION IN
TAXES
I YIELD BACK.
MR. SCALISE: YOU KNOW, ON THIS
ISSUE OF JOBS, WE'RE SEEING
MORE AND MORE AS WELL ON THE
STIMULUS BILL, THE SO-CALLED
STIMULUS BILL THAT WE OPPOSED,
A BILL THAT ADDED ANOTHER $787
BILLION TO OUR NATIONAL DEBT,
WAS COMPLETELY FINANCED ON THE
BACKS OF OUR CHILDREN AND
GRANDCHILDREN, I NOTICED AND
I'M SURE MY COLLEAGUES FROM
LOUISIANA WILL BE HAY TO FIND
OUT WHEN YOU GO TO THE WHITE
HOUSE'S WEBSITE, LOUISIANA HAS
15 DIFFERENT CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS.
AND THEY TALK ABOUT THE JOBS
THAT WERE CREATED BY
STIMULUS BILL IN LOUISIANA'S EIGHTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT.
THE ONLY PROBLEM WITH THAT IS,
AS YOU'RE LAUGHING AND ALMOST
-- IT'S ALMOST COMICAL, WHILE
TH
HOUSE' JOBS
CREATED BY THE STIMULUS BILL,
EIGHTH
CONGSSIONAL DISTRICT, I DON'T
THINK THEY'VE GONE BACK TO
CHECK THAT LOUISIANA HAS SEVEN
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS.
LOOK ACROSS
OTHER STATES, WE ARE SEEING THE
EXACT SAME THING.
THERE IS A WHOLE LOTF NOT
ONLY DECEPTION BUT FRAUDULENT
NUMBERS ABOUT JOBS THAT WERE
CREATED IN DISTRICTS THAT DON'T
EVEN EXIST IN THIS COUNTRY AND
WAS USING MONEY THAT DOESN'T
EXIST BECAUSE IT WAS BORROWED
FROM OUR CHILDREN AND
GRANDCHILDREN
.
MR. FLEMING: PUERTO RICO OR GUAM
HAS ONLY ONE DISTRICT.
BUT THEY ARE UP TO THE 9TH
DISTRICT WL ALL THE FAKE JOBS
AND ARTIFICIAL JOBS THAT WERE
CRTED.
THERE IS A TWO-TIER APPROH TO
INCREASINACCESS TO CARE.
ONE IS TO DO WHAT THIS BILL THAT
JUST PASSED DOES AND THAT IS TO
SAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO COVER AS
MANY PEOPLE AS WE CAN AND WORRY
ABOUT COSTS LATER ON.
BUT ANOTHER IS TO BE EFFICIENT.
AND THEN YOU ARE ABLE TO COVER
MORE PEOPLE BECAUSE THERE IS
MORE MONEY TO GO AROUND.
SO I REALLY I AM CONCERNED THAT
WE STARTED OFF IN THE WRONG
DIRECTION HERE.
OF COURSE, THE SENATE HAS SOME
KIND OF BILL, ALTHOUGH WE
HAVEN'T SEN THE DETAILS OF IT
FROM THE MAJORITY LEADER, BUT I
THINK IT STILL ATTACKS THIS
WHOLE PROBLEM IN SORT OF A
GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER WAY.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE
STATISTICS, MR. SPEAKER, WHAT
YOU FIND IS THAT THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE OPPOSE -- DEPENDS ON
WHICH POLL YOU LOOK AT, BUT
EITHER BY A SLIM MARGIN OR LARGE
MARGIN THEY OPPOSE IT.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE GET IT.
REPUBLICANS IN THE HOUSE AND
SENATE GET IT, SO WHY CAN'T OUR
PRESIDENT AND THE DEMOCRATS IN
CONGRESS GET THAT GOVERNMENT IS
NEVER PROVEEN TO RUN ANYTHING
WELL WHEN IT COMES TO A BUSINESS
LIKE COST EFFECTIVE AND
EFFICIENT MANNER.
WHY ARE WE GOING TO TAKE OVER
1/6 OF THE ECONOMY AND DO JUST
THAT?
MR. CASSIDY: I THINK THAT WAS A
MESSAGE FROM THE TOWN HALL MEETINGS IN AUGUST.
IN AUGUST, THE PEOPLE SPOKE AND
THEY CAME OUT IN DROVES AND SAID
WE WANT REFORM AND WE WANT
REFORM THAT DOES PRESIDENT
CONCENTRATE POWER IN WASHINGTON,
D.C. AND DO
STILL DOES NOT DO ENOUGH TO
CONTROL COSTS, DOESN'T KILL 5.5
MILLION JOBS, SOM
I WOULD CALL PATIENT
SEPTEMBER, SOMETHING
RECOGNIZING THERE IS A HECK OF A
LOT OF MONEY IN THE SYSTEM NOW.
IF WE CREATE THE ECONOMIC MODEL
WHERE PEOPLE ARE
LIVE A HEALTHIER LIFESTYLE,
SAVING THE SYSTEM MONEY AND
SMALL BUSINESSES MONEY, THEN WE
ACTUALLY ACCOMPLISH THIS.
I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
SPOKE IN AUGUST LOUDLY AND
CLEARLY.
THE ONLY QUESTION IS, WILL THEY
BE HEARD.
I WILL COMPLIMENT BY DEMOCRATI
COLLEAGUES, 39 OF THEM HEARD.
39 OF THEM JOINED WITH
REPUBLICANS VOTING AGAINST THIS
BILL, WHICH SACR
FREEDOM, WHICH INCREASES TAXES
BY $730 BILLION, WHICH BECAUSE
OF THAT IT'S ESTIMATED TO COST
5.5 MILLION JOBS AND STILL DOES
NOT CONTROL COSTS.
I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE
WHERE YOU AND I ARE.
I YIELD BACK.
MR. FLEMING: I COVERED THE HUGE
COSTS THAT ARE GOING TO SMAL
BUSINESSES AND INDIVIDUALS,
PERHAPS WHO OPT OUT OF INS
PAY-GO 2.5% OF THEIR ADJUSTED
GROSS INCOME OR TO
OR FIVE YEARS IN PRISON.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE STATES?
YOU KNOW, THE STATES, MR.
SPEAKER, CANNOT
COUNTERFEITING OF MONEY THE WAY
WE IN CONGRESS DO.
THEY CAN'T CREATE A CURRENCY
THAT DOESN'T EXIST.
AND WE INCREASE MEDICAID FROM
100% OF POVERTY.
MR. CASSIDY: JUST THOSE OF US
WHO ARE WATCHING, THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT PUTS UP THE MONEY AND
COVERS THE POOR.
RIGHT NOW IN MANY STATES, THEY
ARE EITHER HAVING TO RAISE TAXES
TO COVER THE COST OF IT OR CUT
BACK SERVICES TO THE POOR.
AND YET WHAT THIS BILL DOES THAT
THE STATE SHALL INCREASE THE
PERCENT OF THEIR POPULATION THEY
ARE PAYING WITH MEDICAID AND THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL PAY A
STATE TAXPAYER HAS TO PAY THE REST.
IN OUR STATE, IN LOUISIANA, IT
ESTIMATED IT WILL COST $610
MILLION EXTRA STATE DOLLARS THAT
WILL COME OUT OF ROADS, HIGHWAYS
AND SCHOOLS.
SCHWARZENEGGER IN CALIFORNIA
SAID $6
I YIELD BACK.
MR. FLEMING: THAT MONEY IS NOT
GOING TO COME OFF THE BACKS OF
OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN
AS IT DOES HERE IN WASHINGTON.
THAT'S GOING TO COME DIRECTLY
OUT OF TAXPAYER POCKETS.
THAT IS GOING TO BE ROADS THAT
AREN'T GOING TO BE BUILT,
BRIDGES THAT AREN'T GOING TO BE
BUILT, PROJECTS THAT AREN'T
GOING TO GO FORWARD, THINGS THAT
WOULD STIMULATE JOB PRODUCTION.
THAT'S MONEY SUCKED OUT OF THE
ECONOMY.
AND REMEMBER THAT AS YOU EXPAND
MEDICAID TO HIGHER AND HIGHER
INCOME LEVELS, YOU ARE PULLING
PEOPLE OF
WHICH PREMIUMS ARE BEING PAID BY
EMPLOYERS AND THE FAMILIES TO
SOME EXTENT.
YOU ARE PULLING THEM INTO
MEDICAID WHICH IS NOW 10%
GOVERNMENT PAID FOR AND AGAIN,
WE ARE CONCENTRATING POWER IN
GOVERNMENT AND COST ON TOP OF
THE TAXPAYER, REALLY A TERIBLE
COMBINATION OF THINGS IN AN ERA
WHERE WE'RE LOKING AT PUSHING
ABOVE A $12 TRILLION LIMIT WHERE
OUR DEFICIT SPENDING HAS
QUADRUPLED IN ONE YEAR WHERE
EVEN THE CHINESE WHO LENDS US
MONEY, THEY ARE OUR CREDIT CARD
COMPANY, HAVE BECOME TER
OF OUR SPENDING AS WELL.
MR. CASSIDY: JUST RECLAIMING MY
TIME.
I THINK PEOPLE BACK HOME ARE
CONCERNED THAT IN THIS CHAMBER,
WE ARE
SO THAT'S WHY I'M TRYING TO MAKE
IT A POINT TO NOT SPEAK FROM A
REPUBLICAN VIEW POINT BUT QUOT
"WASHINGTON POST" AND "NEW YORK
TIMES" THAT SAYS THIS BILL
COSTS.
TO QUOTE THE CENTERS FOR
MEDICAID AND MEDAR
WHICH IS A FEDERAL AGENCY, IN
AGGREGATE WE ESTIMATE FOR THE
CALENDAR YEARS 2010 THROUGH
2019, NATIONAL EXPENDITURES WILL
INCREASE BY $290 BILION.
MOST OF THE PROVISIONS IN H.R.
3962 THAT WERE DESIGNED IN PART
TO REDUCE THE RATE OF GROWTH AND
HETH CARE COSTS WOULD HAVE
RELATIVELY SMALL SAVINGS.
THAT, AGAIN, SOME OF MY
COLLEAGUES, DEMOCRATS, I FEAR
THIS BILL WILL NOT REDUCE
LONG-TERM COSTS AND OUR DEBT AND
DEFICITS WILL SUFFER AND BALLOON
IN THE YEARS AHEAD.
ANOTHER DEMOCRATIC COLEAGUE, MY
PRIMARY CONCERN IS THE LEGISLATION DOES LITTLE TO BRING
DOWN OUT OF CONTROL HEALTH CARE
COSTS WHICH BURDENS FAMILIES AND
SMALL BUSINESSES AND ALSO
TO OUR SKYROCKETING BUDGET DEFICITS.
THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE,
INDEPENDENT AGENCY, SAYS THAT AT
A ROUGH - THAT THE COST IS
GROWING AT ABOUT 8% PER YEAR,
WHICH MORE THAN DOUBLES COST.
IF YOU COMPOUND 8% PER YEAR,
WHEN THE PRESIDENT SAYS THE COST
OF DOING NOTHING IS THAT COSTS
WILL DOUBLE.
IN THIS CASE, DOING THIS
SOMETHING COSTS MORE THAN
DOUBLE, ACCORDING TO THE
CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE.
ON BALANCE DURING THE DECADE
FOLLOWING THE 10-YEAR PERIOD,
THE BILL WOULD INCREASE FEDERAL
OUTLAYS FOR HEALTH CARE AND THE
FEDERAL BUDGETARY COMITMENT TO
HEALTH CARE RELATIVE TO THE
CURRENT AMOUNT THAT DOES NOT
HAVE BEE
MR. FLEMING: IF THE GENTLEMAN WOULD YIELD.
WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MAY
SOUND THEORETICAL, BUT WE
ACTUALLY HAVE A MODEL BY WHICH
REALLY ON A MUCH MORE
MICROSCOPIC LEVEL, WE ACTUALLY
HAVE MANY, BUT MEDICARE IS A
GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE
PROGRAM.
THOSE WHO ARE SERVED BY IT LIKE
WHY THEY LIKE IT, BECAUSE THEY
GET A LOT MORE OUT OF IT THAN
WHAT THEY HAVE PUT INTO IT.
IT IS SUBSIDIZED.
I BELIEVE THE ESTIMATE TODAY IS
THAT IT WILL BE COMPLETELY OUT
OF MONEY IN EIGHT YEARS.
THE COST TODAY, THE ANUAL COST
OF MEDICARE IS
MAGNITUDES GREATER THAN THE
ESTIMATES EVER WERE IN THE PAST.
IT HAS ALWAYS RUN MUCH HIGHER IN
COSTS THAN WAS EVER PREDICTED
AND YET WE THINK WE ARE GOING TO
TAKE A MUCH LARGER HEALTH CARE
SYSTEM CONTROLLED BY A
GOVERNMENTAL SET OF AGENCIES,
111 NEW BUREAUCRACIES AND
MANDATES ANDHAT WHAT WE
COULDN'T DO WITH THE MUCH
SMALLER SYSTEM THAT WAS A LOT
LESS COMPLEX, THAT SOMEHOW WE
ARE GOING TO DO WITH A MUCH
BIGGER, MORE COSTLY SYSTEM.
HAVE THE MONEY AS IT IS.
WE'RE LIVING ON OUR FUTURE, OUR
DESCEND EVENTS AND
THEIR DIME.
MR. CASSIDY: WE HAVE SPOKEN
ABOUT HOW TH WE HAVE TO
PASS IN ORDER TO CONTROL COSTS
IS MORE EXPENSIVE THAN STATUS
QUO.
WE SPOKE ABOUT THE IRONY ABOUT
THE BILL WE HAD TO PAS TO
RESCUE JOBS THAT WILL COST 5.5
MILLION JOBS.
MEDICARE, A GREAT PROGRAM, BUT
GOING BANKRUPT IN SEVEN YEARS.
MEDICAID, ANOTHER FEDERAL
PROGRAM, WHICH IS BANKRUPTING
STATES, IS NOW GOING TO BE
RESCUED BY A THIRD PUBLIC
PROGRAM WHICH IS BASED UPON THE
ONE AND EXPANDS THE OTHER.
SO TWO GOING BANKRUPT OR
BANKRUPTING IS GOING TO BE SAED
BY THE THIRD.
YOU ARE BUILDING A HOUSE UPON A
FOUNDATION OF SAND, IN THIS
CASE, A FISCAL FOUNDATION OF
SAND, WHICH
US AS IT CONCERNS NEWSPAPERS
LIKE THE "WASHINGTON POST" AND
"NEW YORK TIMES"
MR. FLEMING: IT'S CLEAR THAT ALL
OF THESE THINGS, MEDICARE THAT
MONEY, SOCIAL SECURITY THAT
EXISTS TODAY, RUNNING OUT OF
MONEY.
MEDICAID, ALREADY OUT OF MONEY
AND BANKRUPTING STATES.
KILLING JOBS, JOBS ARE WHAT
KEEPS OUR CURRENT HEALTH PLANS
IN PLACE.
$13 TRILLION IN DEBT AND RISING.
MANY, MNY
HERE IN THIS HOUSE THAT WE HAVE
ABSOLUTELY NO WAY OF PAYING FOR
AND WE SEE COSTS COMING RAPIDLY
TOGETHER THAT VERY QUICKLY JUST
THE INTEREST ALONE WILL BEGIN TO
SQUEEZE OUT ALL THE OTHER
SERVICES THAT WE LOOK TO
GOVERNMENT TO HELP US
COMMON DEFENSE.
WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WHEN WE
DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO PROTECT
R COUNTRY, BOTH INTERNALLY AND
EX TERIBLY?
WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WHEN WE
DON'T HAVE MONEY AS A SAFETY NET
THAT WE HELP PEOPLE WHO BECAME
UNEMPLOYED?
WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO?
WE HAVE GOT TO CHANGE THE
DIRECTION.
AND I'M HEARING THIS AL OVER.
I JUST SPOKE AT A TEA PARTY.
PEOPLE ARE PAST ANGRY.
THEY ARE ACTUALLY TERRIFIED AT
THIS POINT.
YOU MENTIONED, DR. CASSIDY, THIS
SUMMER, ALL OF THE TOWN HALLS
AND TEA PARTIES THAT SPRNG UP
DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME.
I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT
AS THE CANARY IN THE MINE SHAFT.
THAT IS THE EARLY WARNING SIGNS
THAT THE CITIZENS OUT THERE ARE
FED UP WITH THE IRRESPONSIBLE WE
ARE DOING HERE.
IT'S TIME WE BEGIN TO LOK AT
REINSTATING INDIVIDUAL CHOICE
AND INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM RATHER
THAN THE GOVERNMENT CONTROLLING
AND MICROMANAGING OUR INDIVIDUAL
LIVES AND TAKING OUR OWN MONEY
AWAY FROM US TO GIVE BACK TO
MR. CASSIDY: IF I COULD RECLAIM
MY POINT.
THE POINT YOU JUST HIT UPON, WE
ALL WANT REFORM AND WE KNOW THE
GOALS OF REFORM ARE TO CONTROL
COSTS, TO EXPAND ACCESS TO
QUALITY CARE.
NOW THERE ARE SOME WHO THINK TO
DO THAT YOU HAVE TO SACRIFICE
FREEDOMS, RAISE TAXES AND KILL
JOBS AND STILL NOT CONTROL
COSTS.
YOU AND I KNOW THAT FROM OUR
PRACTICES THAT YOU CAN DO IT
DIFFERENTLY.
YOU CAN ACTUALLY INCREASE
FREEDOM BY GIVING THAT PERSON
THE ABILITY TO CONTROL HER
ACCOUNT, THAT SHE CAN USE TO
SPEND OR NOT SPEND, TO SEEK
VAE AND IN SO DOING, YO LOWER
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AND CUT
THE INSURANCE COMPANY OUT OF THE
DEAL, BECAUSE NOW SHE HAS HER
OWN ACCOUNT AND DOES PRSIDENT
HAVE TO SUBMIT A PAYMENT CLAIM
BUT PAYS FOR IT WITH A DEBIT
CARD AND CONTROL COSTS IN A
PATIENT-CENTERED WAY.
IN SO DOING, THE PATIENT BECOMES
HEALTHIER AND BY BE
HEALTHIER, YOU CONTROL COSTS NOT
BY 11 BUREAUCRACIES, BOARDS AND
COMMISSIONS.
IT STAYS WITH CONSERVATIVE
RESPONSIBILITY, LIMITED
GOVERNMENT AND FREE ENTERPRISE.
IT WORKS IN THIS SEGMENT OF OUR
ECONOMY AS IT DOES IN EVERY
OTHER SEGMENT.
I YIELD BACK.
.
MR. FLEMING: I ABSOLUTELY
AGREE.
ALREADY TODAY FROM REUTERS
C.M.S. JUST CAME OUT.
ALL OF THESEROUPS, VERY
NONPARTISAN, AND CERTAINLY NO
ONE COULD SAY "THE NEW YORK
TIMES" IS A REPUBLICAN OR EVEN CONSERVATIVE PICKUP I
WILLCATION.
ALL OF THESE GROUPS, THESE
PICKUP I WILLCATIONS, THESE
BOARDS, EDITORS ARE COMING OUT
WITH GREAT ANXIETY OVER THE
COST OF THIS.
AND YOU MIGHT SAY, WELL, WHY
ARE THEY COMPLAINING AFTER THE
FACT?
WELL, REMEMBER THAT WE DEBATED
FOR WEEKS ON H.R. 3200, BUT WE
ONLY HAD ONE DAY, REALLY, TO
VOTE ON H.R. 3962, WHICH REALLY
DOUBLED IN SIZE AND DOUBLED A
NUMBER OF BUREAUCRACIES
VIRTUALLY OVERNIGHT.
AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, NOW THAT
ALL THE CELEBRATION IS OVER IN
THE HOUSE, WE MAY HAVE A LITTLE
HANGOVER GOING
MR. CASSIDY: WELL, AND I THINK
THAT PEOPLE ARE WAKING UP.
AGAIN, IF WE WANT TO ACHIEVE
OUR GOAL AND REFORM FOR ALL,
HEALTH CARE ACCESSIBLE AND
AFFORDABLE COSTS, YOU CAN'T
HAVE IT WITH A PROGRAM THAT
DRIVES UP COSTS AND DRIVES UP
COSTS DESPITE THE TAX HIKES AND
LOSS OF JOBS.
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL HAVE
TIME TO WEIGH IN ON THIS, THE
TIME TO WEIGH IN AS IT GOES
THROUGH THE SENATE AND IN CONFERENCE.
I SAY THEY NEED TO CONGRESS
TACT THEIR -- CONTACT THEIR
CONGRESSMAN AND ALSO
THEIR SENATORS AND TO SAY THAT
THEY WANT REFORM BUT THEY WANT
REFORM THAT DOESN'T KILL JOBS,
RAISE TAXES OR DEPRIVE US OF PERSONAL FREEDOM.
I THINK IN THAT WAY WE CAN HAVE
A BILL THAT SERVES THE
PEOPLE WITHOUT SACRIFICING OUR
VAFMENTS MR. SPEAKER, I THINK
WE'RE ALMOST THROUGH.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN HAS OUT 20 SECONDS.
MR. CASSIDY: WE YIELD BACK.
THANK YOU.
E SPEAKER THE SPEAKER'S ANNOUNCED POLICY
OF JANUARY 6, 2009, THE
GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO, MR. RYAN,
IS RECOGNI 60 MINUTES AS
THE DESIGNEE OF THE MAJORITY
LEADER.
MR. RYAN: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
TRY TO CLEAR THE RECORD QUITE A
BIT, TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT
OUR HEALTH CARE REFORM PROPOSAL
THAT PASSED THE HOUSE OF
REPRESTATIVES A LITTLE MORE
THAN A
THE BENEFITS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
I'D LIKE TO RESPOND TO A COUPLE
OF THE CONCERNS THAT WERE MADE
BY THE OTHER SIDE OVER THE
COURSE OF THE LASTOUR
IT'S VERY INTERESTING TO ME
BECAUSE I WAS HERE OVER THE
LAST SEVEN YEARS AND WAS HERE
DU
BUSH ADMINISTRATION.
I WAS HERE 2002, 2003, 2004,
2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 AND
WATCHED AS OUR FRIENDS ON THE
REPUBLICAN SIDE
THE TOP 1%, THE WEALTHIEST 1%
OF AMERICANS, CONTINUED TO
SPEND MONEY WITH A RECKLESS
DISREGARD FOR THE N
FOR DEFICITS, STARTED TWO WARS,
BORROWED THE MONEY FROM CHINA
TO PAY FOR THE WARS, BORROWED
MONEY FROM CHINA TO COMPENSATE
FOR TAX CUTS THAT WENT TO THE
TOP 1% OF THE WEALTHIEST
AMERICANS.
AND HERE WE ARE A COUPL YEARS
LATER, OUR FRIENDS ON THE OTHER
SIDE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT T
DEFICIT AND THE DEBT.
IT WAS THE PRESIDENT
PRESIDENT BUSH'S APPOINTEES TO
THE S.E.C. THAT GAVE A BLIND
EYE ON WHAT WAS HAPPENING ON
WALL STREET.
WALL STREET COLLAPSES AND THE $
780 BILLION OR $800 BILLION
THAT WE HAD TO SPEND TO
STABILIZE THE ECONOMY WAS UNDER
PRESIDENT BUSH'S WATCH.
IT WASN'T UNDER PRESIDENT OBAMA'S WATCH.
WE SPENT THE LAST NINE MONTHS
CLEANING UP T
MAE LAST EIGHT YEARS.
NOW, THIS IS NOT TO ASSESS BLAME.
WE'RE ALL IN THIS BOAT
TOGETHER.
WE'RE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER.
I RECOGNIZE THAT.
BUT YOU CAN'T CAUSE ALL THESE
PROBLEMS BECAUSE THE
REPUBLICANS CONTROLLED THE
HOUSE, REPUBLICANS CONTROLLED
THE SENATE, REPUBLICANS CONTROLLED THE WHITE HOUSE,
REPUBLICANS CONTROLLED THE SUPREME COURT.
THEY PULLED EVERY LEVER OF
GOVERNMENT, RAN UP THE DEFICIT,
RAN UP THE DEBT,
WARS,
RIGHT, GIVING TAX CUTS TO THE
WEALTHIEST AND THEN WE WONDER
WHY WE ENDED UP WHERE WE ARE TODAY.
NO REGULATION ON WALL STREET.
THE ECONOMY COLLAPSES.
TAX REVENUES GO DOWN.
NOW, I'M NOT SAYING THAT WHAT
OVER THE LAST EIGHT
OR NINE MONTHS HAS BEEN WAV
SOME MAGIC WAND AND ALL OF
THESE PROBLEMS HAVE GONE A
AND I REPRESENT NORTHEAST OHIO.
OUR UNEMPLOYMENT RATE IS AT 15%
IN SOME OF OUR CITIES.
BUT WE CA
THAT THE MONEY
GOING TO WALL STREET, THE
STIMULUS PACKAGE HAS AT LEAST
STEPPED US AWAY FROM THE CLIFF
THAT WE WERE ON.
AND WE WERE ON A CLIFF READY TO FALL OFF.
AS A COUNTRY,
AND WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO
STABILIZE THAT.
NOW, I'M NOT HAPPY WITH WHAT
THE BANKS ARE DOING.
I DON'T THINK ANYONE IS.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO MOVE
MORE MONEY BACK TO COMMUNITY
BANKS AND LET'S STIMULATE
LENDING AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.
THAT'S HOW WE'RE GOING TO
RECHARGE AND REVAIVE OUR ECONOMY.
AND THAT WOULD BE -- REVIVE OUR ECONOMY.
AND THAT WOD BE THE DIRECTION
WE NEED TO GO IN.
BUT YOU CAN CERTAINLY SEE THAT
WE WERE LOSING JOBS AT 700,000
A MONTH.
AND NOW WE'RE STILL
JOBS, STILL TOO MANY, BUT IT'S
AT 200,000-PLUS A MONTH.
SO WE ARE AT LEAST TRENDING IN
THE RIGHT DIRECTION, BUT I GOT
TO TELL YOU, MR. SPEAKER, I GET
A REAL KICK OUT O
FELLOWS ON THE OTHER SIDE WHO
CAUSED ALL OF THESE PROBLEMS
AND THEN NOW COMPLAIN HOW WE'RE
TRYING TO FIX THEM.
AND MAKE NO MISTAKE, YOU KNOW,
THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT HEALTH
CARE AS OUR FRIENDS
WERE TALKING ABOUT, THEIR
ASSUMPTION AND PRESUMPTION WAS
THAT THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM IS
WORKING JUST FINE.
IT'S NOT COSTING US
MONEY, NOT REALLY HURTING MAN
PEOPLE, EVERYONE HAS ACCESS, NO
PRAGSING TODAY.
-- NO RATIONING TODAY, WHICH
ALT IS NOT TRUE.
WE HAVE HEALTH CARE GROWING AT
A 9% CLIP.
WE HAVE THE G.D.P. GROWING AT A
3% CLIP.
YOU CONTINUE TO DO THE MATH,
YOU'LL FIND OUT THAT IN 10
YEARS ONE OUT OF EVERY DOLLAR 5
HEALTH CARE
ECONOMY WILL BE SPENT ON HEALTH CARE.
AND IN 30 YEARS, ONE IN EVERY
$3 WILL BE SPENT ON HEALTH.
THAT IS UNSUSTAINABLE.
UNSUSTAINABLE.
AND TO THINK IF WE DO NOTHING
WHICH IS BASICA
REPUBLICAN PROPOSAL WAS WAS TO
JUST KEEP DOING WHAT WE DO,
DOESN'T COVER MORE PEOPLE,
DOESN'T TAKE CARE A LOT OF THE
HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES THAT ARE
INVOLVED HERE, IF WE CONTINUE
TO DO WHAT WE'RE DOING, THE
AVERAGE FAMILY IN AMERICA WILL
PAY ANOTHER $1,800 A YEAR IN
HEALTH CARE NEXT YEAR.
AND THEN ANOTHER $1,800 THE
FOLLOWING YEAR.
AND ANOTHER $2,000 THE
FOLLOWING YEAR.
AND WE WILL CONTINUE DOWN A
ROAD WHERE THIS CONTINUES TO
EAT UP THE WHOLE FAMILY BUDGET
I HAVE A MEMBER OF MY STAFF W
HAS AN AETNA 7-D HEALTH CARE
PLAN.
OK.
IN 2007 HIS CO-PAY WAS $237 A
MONTH.
IN 2008 IT WENT UP 22%.
IN 2009 IT WENT UP 9.7%.
AND IN 2010
NOW, THIS IS A FEDERAL EMPLOYEE
AND THIS IS HAPPENING ALL
TH
THROUGHOUT OUR COUNTRY.
SO FM 2007 TO 2010, 142%
INCREASE FOR GENE CROCKETT IN
NILES, OHIO.
NOW, OUR FRIENDS ON THE
SIDE, AH, JUST KEEP DOING WHAT
WE'RE DOING.
THINGS ARE OK.
THINGS ARE FINE.
WE'LL GET TO IT.
AND THIS IS CHANGE.
AND THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A
DIFFICULT PROCESS.
BUT WE ARE MOVING FORWARD, AND
IT PASSED THE HOUSE IN A
HISTORIC VOTE A COUPLE WEEKS AGO.
AND WE WILL CONTINUE MOVING IN
THAT DIRECTION SO THAT GENE
CROCKETTS OF THE WORLD AND
AVERAGE PEOPLE AROUND THE
COUNTRY WHO SEE THIS EATING UP
MORE AND MORE OF THEIR BUDGET
WILL GET SOME RELIEF.
AND I WAS AMAZED OVER THE LAST
WEEKEND I WAS HOME AND LAST
WEEK I WAS HOME, YOU KNOW, I'D
BE AT A RESTAURANT AND PEOPLE
WOULD REAL QUIET KIND OF LOOK
AT ME AND SAY, HEY, THANKS FOR
YOUR VOTE ON HEALTH CARE,
CONGRESSMAN.
YOU KNOW, REAL QUIET.
AND THAT'S HOW THIS DEBATE HAS
BEEN IN THIS COUNTRY.
AND THE POLLS ARE BEARING IT OUT.
THE AARP POLL THAT JUST CAME
OUT SHOWED SIGNIFICANT SUPPORT
FOR THIS.
ANOTHER POLL I WAS JUST LOOKING
AT A LITTLE BIT EARLIER,
SIGNIFICANT SUPPORT FOR SOME OF
THESE PROVISIONS.
BECAUSE WE TAKE CARE OF THE
BREAD AND BUTTER ISSUES OF THE
HEALTH CARE SITUATION WE HAVE
IN THIS COUNTRY.
IF YOU'RE A KID OR YOU'RE 27
YEARS OLD OR YOUNGER, YOU CAN
STAY BECAUSE -- IF THIS REFORM
PASSES AND OUT OF THE HOUSE
VERSION AND SOME OF THESE
PROVISIONS IN THE HOUSE VERSION
STAY IN, IF YOU'RE 27 YEARS OLD
OR YOUNGER, YOU CAN STAY ON
YOUR PARENT'S INSURANCE.
IF YOU HAVE EVER BEEN DENIED
INSURANCE COVERAGE BECAUSE YOU
HAVE SOME PRE-EXISTING
CONDITION, THIS REFORM WILL END
THAT PRACTICE.
THAT NO LONGER HAPPEN IN THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EVER AGAIN.
AND OUR FRIENDS ON THE OTHER
SIDE VOTED AGAINST IT.
I WAS GETTING MY HAIRCUT LAST
WEEK AND WAS TALKING TO THE
OWNER OF THE -- GETTING MY HAIR
CUT LAST WEEK AND WAS TALKING
TO THE OWNER OF THE HAIR SALON
AND SAID, WE NEED TO PASS THIS
HEALTH CARE REFORM, NEEDED HELP.
JUST HEARD A STORY ABOUT HER
DAUGHTER WHO STARTED WORKING
WITH HER AND THE DAUGHTER HAD
ASTHMA GROWING UP, WENT TO GET
INSURANCE AND SHE HAD TO SIGN
BASICALLY AN AGREEMENT WITH THE
INSURANCE COMPANY SAYING THAT
IF SHE GOES
BECAUSE OF ASTHMA THAT THE
INSURANCE COMPANY WILL NOT PAY
FOR THAT HOSPITAL VISIT.
SO THE GIRL HAS ASTHMA, SHE'S
PAYING A LOT OF MONEY
HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS AND
HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS A MONTH TO
GET INSURANCE, AND THE ONE
THING THAT SHE'S PROBABLY GOING
TO NEED HER MONEY FOR HER
INSU
NOW, DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE
TO CONTINUE WITH A SYSTEM THAT
TAKES YOUR MONEY BUT WILL NOT
COVER YOU?
THAT DOESN'T SOUND VERY FAIR.
AND THAT PROCESS, THAT
PROVISION, THAT PRACTICE WILL
BE ELIMINATED.
DONE.
NO MORE.
FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE VOTED AGAINST THAT.
WE ALSO HAVE IN THE HOUSE
VERSION A PROVISION THAT LIMITS
E AMOUNT OF MONEY AND, POINT,
THE 27 YEARS OLD AND
PRE-EXISTING CONDITION, HAPPENS
AS THE BILL IS PASSED.
SO THAT WILL START IMMEDIATELY.
THIS IS NOT -- NOW, THE
EXCHANGE AND SOME OTHER THINGS
START IN 2013.
BUT THOSE TWO PROVISIONS START
IMMEDIATELY.
SO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL SEE
THE BENEFITS OF THAT RATHER
QUICKLY.
ANOTHER PROVISION IN THIS BILL
SAYS THAT WITH -- THERE WILL BE
LIMITS TO THE AMOUNT OF MONEY A
PERSON OR FAMILY
YEAR.
IN THE HOUSE BILL IT WAS ABOUT
12% OF YOUR INCOME WHICH IS STILL A LOT.
SO IF YOU MAKE $50,000 OR
$60,000 A YEAR, YOU HAVE A
HEALTH CARE CATASTROPHE IN YOUR
FAMILY, AFTER YOU PAY $5,000 OR
$6,000 OUT OF POCKET IN HEALTH
CARE YOU'RE DONE PAYING FOR THE
REST OF THAT YEAR.
SO FAMILIES IN AMERICA WILL NO
LONGER GO BANKRUPT BECAUSE THEY
HAVE A HEALTH CARE CATASTROPHE
IN THEIR FAMILY.
NOW, IF THAT'S NOT A HUMAN
RIGH DON'T KNOW WHAT
A HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE IS.
AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THIS
BILL DOES.
SO NO MATTER WHAT, NO MATTER
WHAT, FAMILIES IN THIS COUNTRY
WILL NOT GO BANKRUPT BECAUSE OF
HEALTH CARE SITUATIONS IN THEIR FAMILY.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT MY DISTRICT
ALONE, 17TH CONGRESSIONAL
DISTRICT STRETCHES FROM AKRON,
TO KENT, ROVINA, IN PORTAGE
COUNTY, IN TRUMBLE COUNTY, IN
YOUNGSTOWN, OHIO, IN MAHONEY
COUNTY, THE OLD STEEL BELT,
JUST LAST YEAR IN MY DISTRICT
1,700 F
BECAUSE OF HEALTH CARE.
.
OUR FRIENDS
ARE 3-3 NOW.
THEY VOTED FOR ALLOWING KIDS TO
STAY ON THEIR PARENT'S
INSURANCE UNTIL THEY ARE 27
YEARS OLD, WE SAID THAT YOU C
NO LONGER BE DENIED CERAGE
BECAUSE PRE-EXISTING
CONDITIONS, DIABETES, CANCER,
HEART DISEASE, YAZZ THAT, WE
PUT AN END TO THAT PRACTICE,
REPUBLICANS ON THE OTHER SIDE
EXCEPT FOR ONE COAGEOUS
SOLDIER DOWN IN LOUISIANA ALL VOTED AGAINST IT.
.
WE D'T HAVE PEOPLE GOING
BANKRUPT PASSED IN THE HEALTH
CARE REFORM EVERY REPLICAN
SAY ONE COURAGEOUS SOLDIER DOWN
IN LOUISIANA VOTED AGAINST IT.
OUR FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE
WERE TALKING ABOUT SMALL
BUSINESS -- SMALL BUSINESSES
BEING AFFECTED BY THIS.
86% OF SMALL BUSIN
EXEMPTED FROM THIS LEGISLATION.
BUT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO GO IN
TO THE H
EXCHANGE AND ALL OF A SUDDEN
HAVE A LOT MORE BARGAING
POWER THAN THEY HAD BEFORE
BECAUSE THEY WOULD GON TO
CALL THE HEALTH CARE FOLKS UP
AND WHAT YOU GOT, HOW MANY
EMPLOYEES DO YOU GOT, 10, 15,
20ND THE INCREASE OVER THE
LAST SIX OR SEVEN YEARS HAS
BEEN ABOUT 120% INCREASE FOR
SMALL BUSINESSES.
THIS ALLOWS THESE SMALL
BUSINESSES, MR. MURPHY, TO GO
IN TO THE EXCHANGE, TO POOL
THEIR NUMBERS, TO GET BETTER
NEGOTIATING POWER, MORE
NEGOTIATING POWER AND BETTER
RATES BECAUSE OF THEIR ABILITY
TO POOL WITH EACH OTHER.
AND THAT WILL REDUCE HEALTH
CARE COSTS FOR SMALL
BUSINESSES.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT'S
GOING TO BE THE SMALL BUSINESS
FOLKS WHO WILL SEE THIS HEALTH
CARE REFORM AS A REAL STEP INTO
TRYING TO HELP THEM CONTROL
HEALTH CARE COSTS SO THEY CAN
REINVEST BACK INTO THEIR COMPANY.
MR. MURPHY.
MR. MURPHY: THANK YOU, MR. RYAN.
I THANK YOU FOR CONVENING US
DOWN HERE AGAIN.
AND I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT TO
FOCUS US ON THE ISSUE OF SMALL
BUSINESSES BECAUSE THAT IS
WHERE THE PROBLEM HAS LAID FOR
A VERY LONG TIME.
SMALL BUSINESS MEN AND WOMEN
WITH A COUPLE OF EMPLOYEES,
MAYBE 10, 15, 20 EMPLOYEES,
THEY WANT TO DO THE RIGHT
THING, THEY WANT TO PROVIDE
INSURANCE FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES.
MARGINS
THEY FACE NORMALLY AND IN
PARTICULAR WITH THE KIND OF
MARGINS THEY'RE FACING IN THIS
ECONOMY COMBINED WITH THEIR
INABILITY TO ACCESS CAPITAL
FROM THE LENDERS IN THEIR
COMMUNITY TRADITIONALLY MIGHT
BE PROVIDING THEM WITH LOANS
MEANS THEY DON'T HAVE ROOM TO
PROVIDE HEALTH CARE.
AND IN MY DISTRICT IT PROMPTED
ONE INDIVIDUAL, A BRAVE
BUSINESSMAN NAMEDEVIN GAL VIN
WHO HAD HIS OWN -- GALVIN WHO
HAD HIS OWN EXPERIENCE WITH
CONFRONTING OUR VERY BACKWARDS
HEALTH CARE SYSTEM WHEN HIS
DAUGHTER GOT VERY SICK AND
FORCED THAT FAMILY
THROUGH LAYERS OF BUREAUCRACY
AND LAYERS OF APPEAL TO TRY TO
GET THEIR OWN INSURANCE COMPANY
TO TRY TO COVER HER, HE RUNS A
SMALL BUSINESS IN CONNECTICUT,
A MAINTENANCE COMPA
EMPLOYS A HANDFUL OF PEOPLE.
ANTHEIR MARGINS
THAT HE CAN'T AFFORD TO PROVIDE
INSURANCE FOR HIS EMPLOYEES.
NOW, HE'GONE THROUGH IT, THE
TRAGEDY OF TRYING TO GET
TOGETHER THE MONEY
INSURANCE CLAIMS IN ORDER TO
PAY FOR THE CARE OF A SICK
LOVED ONE.
AND SO IT'S RIPPED HIM APART
CAN'T PROVIDE INSURANCE
FOR HIS EMPLOYEES.
AND SO HE DECIDED TO GO OUT AND
DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.
HE DECIDED TO GO OUT IN
CONNECTICUT AND ORGANIZE SMALL
BUSINESSES AROUND THE STATE FOR
HEALTH CARE REFORM.
AND HIS GROUP, SMALL BUSINESSES
FOR HEALTH CARE REFORM CENTERED
IN CONNECTICUT HAS THOUSANDS,
THE CONNECTICUT SMALL BUSINESS
COMMUNITY ALL RALLIED AROUND
OUR EFFORT TO PROVIDE RELIEF
FOR THOSE SMALL EMPYERS THAT
DESPERATELY WANT TO GE
CARE FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES BUT
THEY CAN'T.
THEY CAN'T IN PART BECAUSE OF
THE MARGINS THAT THEY HAVE.
THEY CAN'T ALSO BECAUSE THEY
ARE ON AVERAGE, AS YOU POINTED
OUT, MR. RYAN, ARE PAYING ABOUT
15% TO 20% MORE IN PREMIUMS
THAN LARGE BUSINESSES ARE.
IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, A MATTER
OF SIMPLE ECONOMICS.
IF YOU'RE BARGAINING WITH THE
INSURANCE COMPANIES ON PREMIUMS
FOR ONLY A HANDFUL OF
EMPLOYEES, YOU'RE JUST GOING TO
GET A WORSE DEAL AND HAVE
PAY A HIGHER PRICE THAN IF YOU
WERE A BIG BUSINESS THAT HAVE A
CUP -- HAS A COUPLE HUNDRED EMPLOYEES.
SO HE SEES THE GENIUS, NOT
SUBSTITUTE OUR CURRENT HEALTH
CARE SYSTEM OF SOME OTHER
HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, NOT
IN WHAT THE CABLE NEWS TALK
SHOW HOST CLAIM AS GOVERNMENT
TAKEOVER BUT MAKE THE
MARKET TAKE OVER BUT TO ALLOW
KEVIN GALVIN AND HIS EMPLOYEES
TO JOIN TOGETHER WITH ALL OF
THOSE OTHER SMALL BUSINESSES
WHO ARE IN THE SAME POSITION
WITH ALL OF THOSE OTHER
UNINSURED INDIVIDUAL
PROPRIETORS WHO ARE NEGOTIATING
ON BEHALF OF ONLY THEMSELVES,
PUT THEM ALL IN A POOL AND TO
ALLOW THEM TO NEGOTIATE FOR
LOWER PREMIUMS AGAINST THE
INSURANCE COMPANIES WITH THE
KIND OF BULK PURCHASING POW
THAT WE KNOW WORKS.
AND SO WE HAVE SMALL BUSINESSES
THROUGHOUT CONNECTICUT THAT ARE
STANDING UP AND SCREAMING FOR
HEALTH CARE
BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PROVIDE
HEALTH CARE FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES
AND THOSE THAT ALREADY ARE BEING
CRUSHED BY THE WEIGHT OF THOSE PREMIUMS.
WHEN THEY LOOK AT THIS BILL,
WHEN THEY SEE THE HEALTH CARE
EXCHANGE POOLS ALL OF THEIR
PURCHASING POWER TOGETHER, WHEN
THEY SEE THE TAXREDITS IN THE
BILL THAT IN MY DISTRICT ALONE,
MR. RYAN, ARE GOING TO MEAN THAT
17,000 SMALL BUSINESSES WILL NOW
PAY LOWER TAXES BECAUSE THEY'RE
GOING TO BE ABLE TO OFFSET THEIR
HEALTH CARE EXPENSES AGAINST
THEIR TAX OBLIGATION, THEY SEE A
TREMENDOUS BENEFIT.
AND IF WE WANT TO POINT THE WAY
FORWARD ON THE ECONOMIC
RE
IF WE WANT TO START TO PLOT A
REAL STRATEGY ABOUT HOW WE GROW
JOBS, JOBS IN THIS COUNTRY,
SMALL BUSINESSES ARE THE SOLUTION.
AND
SHOULDERS THE CRUSHING WEIGHT OF
HEALTH CARE COSTS IS
MOST EFFECTIVE STRATEG
ALLOWING THIS HEM TO START
GROWING JOBS AGAIN, MR. RYAN.
.6 C13
>> THIS IS AN ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT BILL.
THIS IS ABOUT ALLOWING THESE
BUSINESSES TO REINVEST BACK
INTO THEIR SMALL BUSINESSES.
IT IS NOT A COINCIDENCE THAT AS
HEALTH CARE HAS EATEN UP MORE
AND MORE OF THE BUSINESSES
BUDGET, THAT WAGES HAVE
STAGNANT OVER THE LAST DECADE
OR TWO.
HAD THE ABILITY TO BOTH EAT THE
INCREASES IN HEALTH CARE AND
GIVE THE REQUISITE AMOUNT OF
PAY INCREASES TO THE WORKERS.
IT'S EITHER-OR.
SO OVER THE LAST DECADE IT'S
THE
TIME.
AND SOMETIMES THEY HAVE PASSED
ON A SMALLER PORTION OF THAT ON
TO THEIR EMPLOYEES WHERE THEY
ARE ASKING FOR MORE OF A
CO-PAY, HIGHER PREMIUMS, AND
THE WHOLE NINE YARDS.
BUT NOW WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS
IF WE CAN GET THESE COSTS UNDER
CONTROL, THOSE SMALL BUSINESSES
CAN REINVEST BACK INTO THE
TECHNOLOGY, BACK IN THE NEW
MACHINES, BACK IN THE WAGES,
BACK IN THE TRAINING, BACK INTO
MORE BENEFITS AND OTHER KINDS
OF BENEFITS, MAYBE RETIREMENT
BENEFITS FOR THEIR WORKERS.
INSTEA BEING STUCK IN THIS
CYCLE OF HEALTH CARE, HEALTH
CARE, HEALTH CARE, AND NO
REINVESTMENT THE
BUSINESS.
MR. MURPHY: IN CONNECTICUT
ALONE, OUR LARGEST INSURER,
WHICH INSURANCE OVER HALF OF
THE INDIVIDUALS IN THE STATE,
ANNOUNCED EARLIER THIS YEAR
THEY WERE GOING TO BE PASSING
DOWN A 30% PREMIUM
SMALL BUSINESS, SMALL G
PLAND INDIVIDUALS.
30%.
IT'S BEYOND ME TO FIGURE OUT
HOW ON EARTH HEALTH CARE COSTS
CHANGED SO MUCH FROM LAST YEAR
TO THIS YEAR YOU CAN JUSTIFY
30% INCREASE.
FROM A SMALL BUSINESS
STANDPOINT THAT CAUSES
THOUSANDS OF SMALL BUSINESSES
TO WALK AWAY.
THAT TOO MUCH.
MY BUSINESS IN A RECESSION IS
DROPPING AND YOU ARE ASKING ME
TO PAY 30% FOR ONE OF MY
IT CAUSES INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE
JUST BEING ABLE TO COBBLE
TOGETHER THE MONEY THEY COULD
TO PAY FOR INSURANCE TO WALKWAY
AND SAY LISTEN, I HELD MY WAGES
FLAT, AND CAN'T PAY A 30%
INCREASE.
IT CAUSES OUR REPUBLICAN
FRIENDS TO CLOSE THEIR EYES AND
PRETEND THAT ALL OF THOSE
PEOPLE AND ALL THOSE EMPLOYEES
WHO LOSE THEIR HEALTH CARE
E
GOING TO SUDDENLY SPEND THE
REST OF THE YEAR REALLY, REALL
SUPERHEALTHY AND NEVER NEED TO GET HEALTH CARE.
THEY ARE GOING TO GET SICK.
THOSE EMPLOYEES ARE GOING TO
GET SICK.
THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO HAD TO
WALK AWAY FROM CARE BECAUSE THE
PREMIUM INCREASE WAS TOO HIGH
ARE GOING TO GET SICK.
THEY ARE GOING TO END UP IN OUR
EMERGENCY ROOMS, THEN WE'LL ALL
PAY FOR IT.
WE'LL PAY FOR IT IN HIGHER
TAXES TO SUBSIDIZE EMERGENCY
ROOM CARE.
WE ARE GOING TO PAY FOR IT IN
HIGHER PRIVATE PREMIUMS TO MAKE
UP FOR THE UNINSURED THAT WALK
IN THE DOORS OF THOSE HOSPITALS.
AND WE ARE GOING TO END UP
PERPETUATI CURRENT SYSTEM
OF SICK CARE WHERE WE FORCE
PEOPLE TO GO WITHOUT INSURANCE,
WAIT UNTIL THEY ARE SO SICK
THAT THEY SHOW UP AT THE
EMERGENCY OM FOR THE MOST
E OF CARE, CRISIS
CARE, WHICH COSTS US ALL A LOT
MORE MONEY IN THE LONG RUN, MR.
RYAN. : IT'S ALL BEEN FEAR
BASED.
ONE OF OUR COLLEAGUES ON THE
R SIDE SAID, THE TEA
BAGGS ARE BEYOND -- THEY ARE
BEYOND SCARED.
THEY ARE TERRIFIED NOW.
THEY ARE TERRIFIED. BECAUSE OF THE BUDGET.
WHERE WERE THESE PEOPLE WHEN
PRESIDENT BUSH AND THE
REPUBLICAN CONGRESS AND HOUSE
AND SENATE WERE CUTTING TAXES
FOR MILLIONAIRES AND STARTING
TWO WARS AND SPENDING MONEY
LEFT AND RIGHT, AND RUNNING UP
THE DEF
TERRIFIED BECAUSE WE ARE SAYING
WE WANT TO HELP SMALL
BUSINESSES, WE WANT TO HELP
CITIZENS IN THE UNITED STATES
BE ABLE TO AFFORD HEALTH CARE
AND WE ARE TAKING ON THE
INSURANCE INDUSTRY.
, MR. SPEAKER, WHAT IS SO
DIFFICULT ABOUT THIS TO
UNDERSTAND?
THEY HAVE BEEN RULING THE ROOST
IN THE COUNTRY FOR HOW LONG,
AND WE ARE STEPPING IN AFTER AN
ELECTION IN 2006 WITH THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE WERE FED UP, AN
ELECTION IN 2008 WHERE
PRESIDENT OBAMA WON.
AND BASICALLY HUGE ELECTION,
AND HE TALKED AS A CENTERPIECE
OF HIS CAMPAIGN ABOUT HEALTH
CARE REFORM. AND HE
THE THING ABOUT IT-DIRNL' SURE
OUR DISTRICTS AREN'T THAT MUCH
DIFFERENT.
MANUFACTURING, A LOT OF
IMMIGRANTS CAME OVER THE LAST
100, 150 YEARS TO OUR STATES,
AND A LOT OF MIDDLE CLASS
PEOPLE, AND OUR PEOPLE DON'T
GET ON A BULLHORN AND SCREAM
ABOUT THEIR PROBLEMS THAT THEY
HAVE IN THEIR FAMILY.
THEY HAVE A LOT OF PRIDE.
BUT THEY JUST WANT TO MUSCLE
THROUGH IT, BUT THEY WANT AN
ELEMENT OF FAIRNESS IN THE
SYSTEM. SO THEY'LL, AS I SAID, I DON'T
KNOW IF YOU WERE HEROR NOT,
THEY'LL GRAB ME AT THE
RESTAURANT AND THANK ME FOR MY
VOTE OR I HOPE IT PASSES, PULLS
THROUGH, BUT THEY ARE NOT GOIN
TO GET ON RUSH LIMBAUGH AND
CALL IN AND TALK ABOUT HOW
THEIR DAUGHTER IS SICK AND THE
PROBLEMS THAT THEY HAD AND GO
ON AND ON.
BUT WHEN I STOOD AT THE CAN
FOOLED FAIG
INTO A RESTAURANT, GETTING MY
HAIRCUT, WHATEVER THE SITUATION
WAS, THEY WOULD GRAB ME AND
QUIETLY SAY, THANK YOU.
GOD, IS THIS GOING TO PASS?
IS THIS REALLY GOING TO HAPPEN?
THAT'S WHAT AVERAGE PEOPLE ARE
SAYING HERE TODAY.
AND THESE SITUATIONS THAT GO ON
ALL ACROSS OUR COUNTRY AND TO
TURN A BLIND EYE TO IT, AS THE
REPUBLICAN PROPOSAL DOESN'T
COVER EVERYBODY.
IT WAS LIKE HERE'S OUR PROPOSAL.
GREAT.
YOU COVER ANOTHER MILLION PEOPLE.
BOY, THAT'S GOING TO BRING DOWN
THE PRESSURE ON THE EMERGENCY
ROOMS. THIS IS PRETTY SIMPLE.
I TALKED ABOUT THE REFORMS, BUT
IF YOU MAKE $89,000 A YEAR OR
LESS, YOU ARE GOING TO GET
CREDITS, SUBSIDIES TO GO HELP
YOU PAY FOR YOUR INSURANCE.
SO THAT FAMILY WILL HAVE MORE
MONEY TO SPEND IN OTHER PARTS
OF THE ECONOMY INSTEAD OF
HEALTH CARE EATING A HUGE CHUNK
OF THE ECONOMY UP, THEY'LL HAVE
MONEY TO PAY FOR THEIR KIDS'
COLLEGE EDUCATION, TO MAKE
INVESTMENTS TO BUY A NEW CAR,
TOE AUTO INDUSTRY
GOING, BUY A NEW REFRIGERATOR,
BUY A NEW HOUSE.
LITERALLY YOU THINK ABOUT THE
-- JUST $1,800 INCREASE NEXT
YEAR IN HEALTH CARE BILLS F. WE
GET HEALTH CARE COSTS UNDER
CONTROL, IMAGINE THE AMOUNT OF
MONEY THESE FAMILIES AND SMALL
BUSINESSES ARE GOING TO HAVE TO
SPEND IN BUYING D
INDUSTRIAL GOODS.
MR. MURPHY: THIS IS NOT MY .
OTHERS HAVE SAID THIS.
THIS IS A CONSUMER TAKEOVER OF
THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.
THAT'S WHAT THIS IS.
THIS IS PUTTING CONSUMERS AND
PATIENTS AND RULAR, AVERAGE
ORDINARY AMERICANS BACK IN CHARGE.
AND PEOPLE WERE ANGRY ABOUT A
LOT OF THINGS WHEN PRESIDENT
BUSH WAS IN CHARGE AND THE
REPUBLICANS CONTROLLED THE
HOUSE AND SENATE.
THEY WERE ANGRY THAT IT SEEMED
LIKE THE OIL COMPANIES WERE
RUNNING OUR ENERGY POLICY.
THEY WERE ANGRY THAT THE BANKS
SEEMED TO GET WHATEVER THEY
WANTED WHEN IT CAME TO
FINANCIAL POLCY.
AND THEY WERE ANGRY THAT THE
INSURANCE COMPANIES AND DRUG
COMPANIES SEEMED TO GET
EVERYTHING THEY WANTED WHEN IT
CAME TO HEALTH CARE POLCY.
THEY HAD SOME PRETTY GOOD
EXAMPLES.
I'LL ADD TO YOUR LIST OF ALL OF
THE DEFICIT INCREASERS OVER THE
COURSE OF THE REPUBLICAN
THIS CONGRESS,
MEDICARE PART D, THE ONE TIME
THAT THIS
DECIDED TO LEGISLATE ON HEALTH
CARE, THEY DID IT IN A WAY THAT
GUARANTEED ENORMOUS PROFITS FOR
THE INSURANCE AND DRUG
INDURY, IN PARTICULAR, BY
MEDICARE PART D LAW THAT
SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITED THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FROM
NEGOTIATING DEEP DISCOUNTS ON
BEHALF OF ALL MEDICARE
BENEFICIARIES AGAINST THE DRUG
COMPANIES.
AND THEY PAIDER FOR IT ALL BY BORROWING.
SO TS SUDDEN CONVERSION TO
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY BY THE
REPUBLICANS IS PRETTY
TRANSPARENT TO PEOPLE THAT HAVE
BEEN CARING ABOUT HEALTH CARE
FOR LONG ENOUGH TO REMEMBER
WHEN REPUBLICANS CAME HERE
PROPOSED AND PASSED A MEDICARE
DRUG BENEFIT THAT WAS WRITTEN
BY THE DRUG AND INSURANCE
BORROWING.
.
ALL OF THOSE TEA BAGGERS AND
ALL OF THOSE NONTEAT PARTIERS
WHO ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE
DEFICITS, THIS HEALTH CARE BILL
ISN'T JUST DEFICIT NEUTRAL, IT
BRINGS DOWN THE DEFICIT BY $30
YEARS.
YOU CAN ARGU POLICY,
BUT YOU CAN'T ARGUE C.B.O. SCORE.
THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET
SAYS THAT THIS BILL OVER THE
COURSE OF 10 YEARS WILL BRING
DOWN THE DEFICIT AND ACTUALLY
TELLS US
YEARS WILL BRING DOWN THE
DEFICIT BY EVEN MORE STANDING
IN CONTRAST TO THE SOLE EFFORT AT HEALTH CARE
REFORM WHEN THEY CONTROLLED
THIS PLACE WHICH HANDED MORE
POWER TO THE INDUSTRY THAT WERE
RUN TO BEGIN WITH AND DID IT
ALL BY BORROWING.
SO, MR. RYAN, IT'S THE WAR,
IT'S THE TAX CUTS BUT IT'S
THE REPUBLICANS' POLICY ON HEALTH CARE.
AND SO -- AND I DON'T HAVE A
LOT OF SYMPATHY FOR OUR
REPUBLICAN FRIENDS WHO COME
DOWN HERE AND TALK TO US ABOUT
THE HEALTH CARE IMPLICATIONS
FOR THE DEFICIT.
OUR BILL LOWERS THE DEFICIT.
THEIR ONE
CARE MASSIVELY INCREASED THE
DEFICIT.
MR. RYAN: IT'S NOT JUST CHRIS
MURPHY FROM CONNECTICUT OR ME
OR NANCY PELOSI.
HERE'S FROM THE BUSINESS
ROUNDTABLE, C.E.O.'S OF TH
NATION'S LARGEST BUSINESSES
RELEASED A REPORT ON THE IMPACT
OF HEALTH RE LEGISLATION
MOVING THROUGH CONGRESS IN
THAT, QUOTE, KEY COMPONENTS OF
HEALTH CARE REFORM COULD SLOW
THE GROWTH OF HEALTH CARE COSTS
AND OFFER REAL SAVINGS FOR
COMPANIES AND THEIR EMPLOYEES.
ACCORDING TO THE BUSINESS
ROUNDTABLE-HEWITT STUDY, MANY
OF THE
CURRENTLY IN THE HEALTH REFORM
BILLS COULD REDUCE COSTS BY AS
MUCH AS $3,000
2019.
THIS IS THE BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE.
THIS IS NOT THE DEMOCRATS.
THIS IS THE C.E.O.'S OF THE
NATION'S LARGEST BUSINESSES. YOU SAID, C.B.O., BUSINESS
ROUNDTABLE, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE
TRYING TO FIX.
AND WHEN YOU HAVE THE C.E.O.'S
OF THE NATION'S LARGEST
BUSINESSES, YOU KNOW, SAYING
THAT THIS IS -- THIS REFORM
WILL SAVE US $3,000 PER
EMPLOYEE BY 2019, AND YOU HAVE
HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS AND
HUNDREDS, IF NOT THOUSANDS OF
EMPLOYEES, THAT MONEY IS GOING
TO GO TO WAGES
TECHNOLOGY, ON AND ON AND ON
ANDN, THESE INVESTMENTS WILL
BE MADE.
NOT SIT AROUND AND DO
YOU KNOW, REPUBLICANS JUST CAME
IN THE LAST WEEK FINALLY GET
OUT A PROPOSAL.
IT TOOK -- WE'VE BEEN DEBATING
ABOUT HEALTH CARE ALL THIS TIME
AND THEY WERE IN CONTROL OF
EVERY MAJOR BRANCH OF
GOVERNMENT FROM 2000 TO 2006,
DIDN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT HEALTH CARE.
NOW, WE'RE COMING TO TRY TO FIX
IT, BUT IF YOU WAN TO ACTUALLY
TALK ABOUT, MR. SPEAKER, WHAT
WE HAVE -- WHAT WE HAVE DONE -- >> WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD?
MR. RYAN: BE HAPPY TO YIELD.
>> I JUST RECALL THAT WE WERE
-- WE WERE TOGETHER WHEN WE
PASSED THE LITIGATION LAWSUIT
ABUSE REFORM OUT OF THE HOUSE
AND IT GOT STARTED UP IN THE
SENATE.
THAT WOULD BE ONE THINGI POINT
OUT TH I THINK IT'S
IMPORTANT.
MR. RYAN: RECLAIMING MY TIME.
LITIGATION HAS BEEN PROJECTED
TO HAVE ONLY 1 EFFECT ON THE
COST OF OVERALL HEALTH CARE
SPENDING.
MR. KING: WILL THE GENTLEMAN
YIELD?
$54 BILLION.
MR. RYAN: OVER 10 YEARS?
MR. KING:
MR. RYAN: 1% OF COSTS.
AND THERE'S NO REAL WAY TO
QUANTIFY -- RECLAIMING MY TIME
-- NO REAL WAY TO QUANTIFY THIS
NUMBER.
BUT WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT
BILLIONS AND BILLIONS AND
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND, AGAIN,
THAT'S TO MY PNT THAT THE
REPUBLICAN PLAN IS TO JUST
OF NIBBLE AROUND THE EDGES AND
MAYBE WE'LL TRY TO DO THIS A
LITTLE BIT HERE AND A LITTLE
BIT THERE BUT AT THE END OF THE
DAY HERE'S THE REALITY.
SINCE WE HAVE GOTTEN IN OFFICE
AND WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA BUT
BEFORE THAT, WE TOOK ON THE
BANKS AND YANKED THEM OUT OF
THE STUDENT LOAN BUSINESS
BECAUSE THEY HAD A SWEETHEART DEAL.
AS YOU SAID, WITH MEDICARE PART
D, WHERE ALL OF THIS MONEY IS
GOING TO THE PHARMACEUTICAL
COMPANIES, WE ARE REFORMING
THAT PROVISION AS WELL.
NOW, WE'RE TAKING ON THE
INSURANCE COMPANIES.
WITH THE ENERGY BILL,
ON THE OIL COMPANIES WHERE THEY
ARE GETTING SUBSIDIES AND JUST
A COUPLE YEARS AGO WE SPENT
$115 BILLION OR $120 BILLION IN
ESCORTING EXXONMOBIL SHIPS IN
AND OUT OF THE MIDDLE EAST SO
THAT THEY WOULD BE SAFE TO
FURTHER SUPPLEMENT AND, YOU
KNOW, SUBSIDIZE THE OIL
INDUSTRY.
TOOK ON THE OIL
INCREASED MINIMUM WAGE,
INCREASED PELL GRANTS, WE MADE
STEPS TO MAKE INVESTMENTS.
BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS THIS
HEALTH CARE REFORM BILL IS
ABOUT ECONIC DEVELOPMENT IN
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. MR. MURPHY: AND PEOPLE HAVE
BEEN CRYING OUT FOR, MR. RYAN,
AND I THINK THAT THAT'S WHY YOU
AND I BOTH HAVE FAMILIES COMING
UP TO US.
AND AS YOU SAID,
QUIETLY EXPRESSING TO US THEIR
STORIES.
YOU KNOW, FOLKS IN MY DIST
ARE THE SAME WAY BUT YOU FIND
THEM, YOU HEAR FROM THEM.
I REMEMBER KNOCKING ON
SOMEBODY'S DOOR THIS SUMMER AS
I WAS GOING AROUND A COUPLE
NEIGHBORHOODS TO CHECK IN
HEARING A GUY TALK ABOUT HIS ILLNESS.
HE'D ACTLLY, I THINK, BEEN
INJURED AND HIS WORKER'S COMP
DID NOT PAY FOR THE ENTIRETY OF
THE CARE THAT HE NEEDED.
AND SO HE HAD TO GO TO HIS
PRIMARY INSURER.
HE HAD TO PAY FOR SOME OF IT
OUT OF HIS OWN POCKET AND IT
GOT SO BAD AND HIS EXPENSES GOT
SO HIGH THAT THE ONLY PLACE
THAT HE COULD GO WITHOUT LOSING
HIS HOUSE WAS ONE MAIN
ACCOUNT HE DID OWN AND THAT WAS
HIS CHILD'S COLLEGE FUND.
AND SO HE PLANNED AT FIRST
TAKE A LITTLE BIT OUT OF HIS
CHILD'S COLLEGE FUND.
FIGURE THE ECONOMY MIGHT TURN
AND HE MIGHT BE ABLE TO LITTLE BIT BETTER JOB.
AND THEN HE HAD TO GO BACK
AGAIN.
AND HE HAD TO GO BACK A
BY THE TIME I SAW HIM THAT
SUMMER THAT COLLEGE FUND WAS GONE.
HE HAD NO MONEY SAVED FOR COLLEGE.
AND THE ONLY WAY THAT HIS SON
WHO BY THIS TIME WAS IN HIS
TEENAGE YEARS AND THE ONLY WAY
TO GO TO COLLEGE WAS IF HE GOT
A FULL RIDE SOMEWHERE.
AND HIS SON'S DREAMS HAVE
EVAPATED BECAUSE OF HEALTH
ILLNESSES.
NOW, THIS PARTICULAR FAMILY HAD
THAT MONEY SAVED AWAY FOR
COLLEGE, AND SO IT'S NOT ONE OF
THE THOUSANDS OF FAMILIES THAT
WENT INTO BANKRUPTCY.
SO WE SHOULD REMI
THAT WHEN WE HEAR ALL THESE
STATISTICS ABOUT THE THOUSANDS
AND THOUSANDS OF FAMILIES WHO
GO INTO
JUST BECAUSE MOM GOT CANCER,
THAT DOESN'T COUNT ALL OF THE
FAMILIES WHO DID THE
RESPONSI
TO SQUIRREL AWAY A LITTLE BIT
OF MONEY AND EXHAUSTED ALL OF
IT CHANGING THEIR PLANS
FOREVER.
SO LAYER ON TOP OF ALL OF THE
BANKRUPTCIES, THE HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS OF
RUINED WITHOUT BANKRUPTCY
BECAUSE OF THE CRIPPLING COSTS
OF MEDICAL CARE.
AND SO THIS IS BEING CELEBRATED
BY ALL OF THESE FAMILIES OUT
THERE WHO HAVE HAD TH
CHANGED FOR SO MANY DIFFERENT
REASONS BECAUSE THEY DO SEE
THEY ARE GOING TO GET SOME
WAGES BACK FROM THEIR EMPLOYER
WHO DOESN'T HAVE TO SPEND EVERY
DIME ON HEALTH CARE.
BUT THEY ALSO SEE THIS BILL IS
GOING TO GIVE THEM SOME
SECURITY THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE
THOUGHT JUST CAME WITH BEING A
CITIZEN OF THE MOST POWERFUL
AND MOST OF A LIEUTENANT -- AND
MOST AFFLUENT COUNTRY IN THE
WORLD.
FOR THE LIFE OF ME, IT'S BEYOND
ME WHY THIS CONGRESS HAS NOT
BEEN ABLE TO STAND UP TO THEM.
I KNOW THAT INVITES THE IRE OF
THE HEALTH CARE INDUSTRY.
I KNOW THERE WILL BE A LO
COMMERCIALS ONAIR CRITICIZING
MEMBERS WHO VOTED IN FA
THIS AND THOSE WHO MIGHT BE
VOTING FOR IT IN THE SENATE.
BUT IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME
COMING FOR THOSE FAMILIES THAT
WE BOTH KNOW AND THOSE SMALL
BUSINESSES THAT HAVE BEEN
CALLING FOR IT.
MR. RYAN: I MEAN, YOU THINK
ABJUST IN THE 17TH
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, 14,000
SMALL BUSINESSES WILL NOW BE
GOING TO BE NEGOTIATING WITH
MORE IN OTHER SMALL BUSINESSES
TO TRY TO BRING DOWN PRICES.
AND 12,300 SMALL BUSINESSES IN MY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT WILL
BE GETTING TAX CREDITS AS
INNTIVE TO COMPENSATE FOR
THIS.
43,000 PEOPLE WILL NOW HAVE
INSURANCE THAT
INSURANCE.
AND WE HAVE IN YOUNGSTOWN A
HOSPITAL THAT JUST FILED
BANKRUPTCY.
YOU KNOW, NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN
EVERY SINGLE PERSON THAT WALKS
THROUGH THAT DOOR WILL HAVE
HEALTH INSURANCE.
AND NSTEAD OF THAT COST BEING
PASSED ON TO EVERYONE ELSE.
AND I CAN'T HELP BUT TO THINK
ABOUT THE GENTLEMAN YOU WERE
JUST TALKING ABOUT WHO HAD TO
SPEND THROUGH HIS
FUND IF THESE REFORMS
IN PLACE, THAT PERSON'S AMOUNT
OF OUT-OF-POCKET EXPENDITURES
WOULD BE LIMITED TO 10% OR 12%
OF THAT FAMILY'S INCOME.
SO THEY WOULDN'T HAVE HAD TO GO
INTO THE COLLEGE FUND.
OUR FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE VOTED AGAINST THAT.
SO WE GOT TO GO BACK TO OUR
CONSTITUENTS AND DEFEND EVERY
VOTE THAT WE HAVE MADE HERE AND S TO ME IS SIGNIFICANT.
THE PRE-EXISTING CONDITION NOT
BEING KICKED OFF OF YOUR
INSURANCE BECAUSE YOU GET SICK,
YOU KNOW, THE BEING ABLE TO
STAY ON YOUR PARENT'S INSURANCE
UNTIL YOU'RE 27 YEARS OLD.
ALL OF THOSE ARE SIGNIFICANT
STEPS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
NOT TO MENTION ON MEDICARE PART
D BY EXTENDING AND HAVING
CONSISTENT DRUG COVERAGE
THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE
ENTIRE YEAR INSTEAD OF
INTERRUPTED COVERAGE WHICH IS HAPPENING NOW.
AND I GOT A LETTER FROM A
DOCTOR THIS SUMMER WHO WAS
TELLING ME ABOUT A PATIENT THAT
HE HAD THAT MET HER LIMIT ON
PART D.
AND I CAN'T REMEMBER AT THIS
POINT EXACTLY WHAT THE ISSUE
WAS WITH HER.
BUT THEY HAD TO TAKE HER FROM
THE DRUG OF CHOICE TO A CHEAPER
DRUG BECAUSE SHE COULDN'T
AFFORD IT.
SO IN JUNE OR JULY WHEN SHE MET
HER CAP THEY HAD TO SWITCH
PRESCRIPTIONS BECAUSE SHE
COULDN'T AFFORD THE ONE THAT HE
HAD HER ON.
SHE ENDED UP GETTING SICK.
THEY SWITCHED PRESCRIPTIONS
AGAIN AND AGAIN AND SHE ENDED
UP IN THE HOSPITAL FOR A WEEK
OR TWO.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, IT'S THE
PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHY WOULD
YOU NOT JUST -- HOW MUCH
CHEAPER WOULD IT HAVE BEEN FOR
THE TAXPAYER TO CONSISTENTLY
PAY FOR THOSE PRESCRIPTIONS
THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE
YEAR INSTEAD OF HER
THE HOSPITAL AND FOR A WEEK OR
10 DAYS OR TWO WEEKS AND HAVING
MEDICARE PAY FOR
JUST DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A VERY
SMT INVESTMENT ON BEHALF OF
THE TAXPAYER.
MR. MURPHY: AGAIN, IT'S A
REASON WHY,
COME OUT SO STRONGLY IN FAVOR
OF THIS BILL BECAUSE THEY KNOW
THAT THIS IS A
SENIORS.
NOW, LISTEN, A LOT OF DEMOCRATS
DISAGREED WITH THE FACT THAT
AARP CAME OUT AND SUPPORTED THE
MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG BILL
WHEN IT DID.
BUT IT
IS A GROUP THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN
THEY THI IT'S RIGHT FOR
SENIORS, IT'S
GOING TO SUPPORT IT WHETHER
IT'S A REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT
PROPOSAL. A LOT OF
REPUBLICANS AND CONSERVATIVE
TALK SHOW HOSTS COME OUT SAYING
THAT THE AARP ENDORSEMENT
DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING. THEY'RE FRIENDLY TO THE
DEMOCRATS.
WELL, THEY ENDORSED THE
MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG
BENEFIT ICH WAS,
VOTED ON SOLELY BY REPUBLICANS.
SO WHETHER WE AGREE OR
DISAGREE, THEY PLAYED BOTH
SIDES OF THIS DEBATE.
BUT AARP SUPPORTS THIS BILL
BECAUSE IT GETS RID OF THE DOUGHNUT HOLE.
NOW, IT TAKES A LITTLE WHILE TO
FULLY GET RID OF IT, BUT
ONE AFTER THIS BILL IS PASSED,
THE SIZE OF THE DOUGHNUT HOLE
GETS REDUCED BY $500
EVERY SENIOR THAT WALKS INTO
THE PHARMACY WHEN YOU'RE IN
THAT MOMENT OF EXPOSURE, THE
COST OF BRAND NAME DRUGS
BE CUT IN HALF.
EVERY BRAND NAME DRUGS FOR
SENIORS IN THE DOUGHNUT HOLE
GETS CUT BY 50%.
WHEN YOU WALK IN TO GET YOUR
CHECKUP, NO LONGER DOES ANY
SENIOR HAVE TO COME UP WITH THE
MONEY OUT OF THEIR POCKET.
MEDICARE IS GOING TO PAY FOR
THAT NOW BECAUSE WE KNOW IT
JUST MAKES SENSE TO HAVE NO
BARRIERS TORE PREVENTATIVE
HEALTH CARE FOR SENIORS.
SO AARP JOINING THE
MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, JOINING
CONSUMER REPORTS, JOINING
DOZENS OF OTHER SPECIALTY
PHYSICIAN GROUPS OUT THERE HAVE
SUPPORTED THIS LEGISLATION
BECAUSE THEY SEE THE BENEFIT
FOR THAT SENIOR THAT YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT ON
D AND MILLIONS MORE.
MR. RYAN: AND THE IDEA HERE,
TOO, AND THIS IS HOW MEDICARE
-- THIS BILL EXTENDS MEDICARE'S
LIFE AN ADDITIONAL FIVE YEARS
IN PART BECAUSE OF COST SAVINGS
AND A VARIETY OF OTHERS.
BUT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE
HEALTHIER PEOPLE GOING INTO THE
MEDICARE PROGRAM.
YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW WE HAVE
PEOPLE THAT ARE 55, 60
OLD AND WE SEE A LOT OF THEM IN
OUR COMMUNITIES, THE OLDER
MANUFACTUR
WORK UNTIL YOU'RE 55, WHO WORK
UNTIL YOU'RE 60 AND THEN ALL OF
A SUDDEN THE COMPANY GOES
BANKRUPT OR THEY LAY YOU OFF OR
THEY MOVE THE FACTORY TO MEXICO
OR TO CHINA OR WHATEVER THE
CASE MAY BE AND THEN ALL OF A
SUDDEN THIS PERSON, AND I HAD
-- HAVE MET SEVERAL OF THEM,
TALKED TO THEM ON THE TELEPHONE
TOWN HALLS WHERE THIS ONE WOMAN
IN PARTICULAR I REMEMBER, 60
YEARS OLD, JUST IS IT NOT LOS
HER JO
CARE COVERAGE.
THE COMPANY COULD NO LONGER
AFFORD IT.
SO NOW SHE'S 620.
SHE IS -- CAN'T AFFORD -- SO
NOW SHE'S 60.
SHE MAKES $32,000 A YEAR.
CAN'T MAKE IT.
CAN'T AFFORD HEALTH CA COVERAGE.
SHE SAID, I AM GOING TO WAIT
UNTIL I GET ON MEDICARE.
.
NOW A PHYSICIAN WON'T MANAGE
THOSE PROBLEMS SHE HAS.
THEY ARE GOING TO GO WITHOUT
ANY CARE, TREATMENT, ANY KIND
OF MANAGEMENT WHATSOEVER.
SO SHE IS GOING TO GO INTO
MEDICARE AT 65 MUCH SICKER
SHE WOULD HAVE WENT IN IF SHE
HAD DECENT HEALTH CARE, WHERE
MANAGED
AND NOT BECOME CHRONIC TO WHERE
THEY COULD COST THE MEDICARE
SYSTEM THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS,
TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS,
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS POSSIBLY
DEPENDING ON WHAT THE ISSUE IS.
SO YOU HAVE A HEALTHIER PERSON
GOING INTO THE MEDICARE PROGRAM
THAT'S GOINGO EXTEND THE LIFE
OF MEDICARE, IT'S MUCH MORE
HUMANE THAN TO SAY TO SOMEONE
-- WHAT KIND OF SYSTEM IS THIS?
60 YEARS OLD, YOU WORK YOUR
WHOLE LIFE, AND YOU SAY, SORRY,
YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN, WE'LL PICK
YOU UP AT 65, THANKS FOR EVERYTHING.
YOU LOST YOUR HEALTH CARE.
THAT IS NOT RIGHT.
THAT IS NOT RIGHT, MR. SPEAKER.
AND THAT'S WHAT THIS WHOLE
PROGRAM IS TRYIN. MURPHY: ONE LAST THING, MR.
RYAN.
IS THAT THE PEOPLE WE ARE
TALKING ABOUT, THE STORIES WE
ARE TELLING, I DON'T THINK YOU
OR I KNOW WHETHER THESE PEOPLE
THAT HAVE APPROACHED US ARE
REPUBLICANS OR DEMOCRATS.
I HAVE NO IDEA WHETHER THAT GUY
WHO HAD TO DRAIN HIS ENTIRE
COLLEGE SAVINGS LISTENS --
WATCHES MSNBC OR WATCHES FOX NEWS.
I HAVE NO IDEA.
BECAUSE HEALTH CARE CRISES,
HEALTH CARE CAUSED BANKRUPTCIES
STRIKE REPUBLICANS AND
DEMOCRATS, LIBERALS AND
CONSERVATIVES, PEOPLE ON THE
LEFT AND PEOPLE ON THE RIGHT.
THIS IS A NONPARTISAN,
NONPOLITICAL ISSUE.
AND MAYBE I WAS NAIVE WHEN I
CAME HERE A COUPLE YEARS AGO,
BUT I JUST THOUGHT THAT THERE
WAS GOING TO BE A WAY WITH 50
MILLIO UNINSURED, WITH
HEALTH CARE COSTS RISING 120%
PER THE AVERAGE SMALL BUSINESS
IN THIS COUNTRY OVER THE LAST
10 YEARS, WITH BANKRUPTCIES
CAUSED BY MEDICAL COSTS ON THE
RISE.
I JUST FIGURED THERE WOULD B
WAY TO GET TOGETHER ON THIS FOR
REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS TO
SAY LET'S DO SOMETHING.
AND I THINK FOR THE LONGEST
TIME I BELIEVED THAT THERE WAS
STILL GOING TO BE CHANCE FOR
REPUBLICANS TO CE TO THE
TABLE HERE.
AND I DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE
THAT THE REPUBLICANS'
OPPOSITION TO THIS BILL IS
ABOUT POLITICAL GAIN.
DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE THAT THE
REASON MEMBERS COME DOWN HERE
AND OPPOSE EVERY SINGLE THING
THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO DO AND
THEN PROPOSE AN ALTERNATIVE
BILL THAT WAS A JOKE THAT
ACTUALLY LEFT MORE PEOPLE
UNINSURED AT THE END OF IT THAN
HAD THE BILL NOT GONE INTO
EFFECT.
I JUST -- I DON'T WANT TO
BELIEVE THAT.
BUT THERE IS MOUNTING EVIDENCE
OF THAT CASE.
SO, LISTEN, THIS THING'S NOT
OVER, MR. RYAN.
WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO
COME DOWN HERE AND PRESS THE
CASE FOR REFORM.
WE ARE GOING TO CONTUE TO
COME DOWN HERE AND PRESS THE
NEED FOR BOTH PARTIES TO BE
OF THIS SOLUTION.
BUT IT IS INCREASINGLY APPARENT
THAT ERE IS ONLY ONE PIECE OF
THIS HOUSE AND ONE PIECE OF THE
SENATE THAT'S REALLY PUSHING TO
GET THIS DONE FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
I WISH THAT WASN'T THE CASE.
WE'LL CONTINUE TO TRY TO PRESS
FOR IT TO CHANGE, MR. RYAN.
MR. RYAN: THE BOTTOM LINE IS
THIS.
THE BUSINES
C.E.O.'S IN THE UNITED STATES
SAY THAT OUR PROVISIONS IN THIS
BILL WILL SAVE THEM AS MUCH AS
$3,000 PER EMPLOYEE BY 2019.
THE C.E.O.'S OF THE CONTRY, TOP
C.E.O.'S OF OUR COUNTRY SAYING
THIS IS GOING TO BE THE CASE.
LET'S AS WE WRAP THINGS UP
HERE, MR. MURPHY, LET'S USE
SOME GOOD COMMON SENSE HERE.
WE ARE GOING TO TAKE 30
PEOPLE WHO WAIT UNTIL THEY GET
ABSOLUTELY DEATHLY SICK AND GO
EMERGENCY ROOM.
OFF AND OUT OF THE EMERGENCY
ROOM ROLLS, GET THEM PREVENTIVE
CARE, SOLVE PROBLEMS WITH $20
PRESCRIPTIONS INSTEAD OF NIGHTS
IN THE HOSPITAL, AND REDUCE
HEALTH CARE COSTS OVERALL.
ELIMINATE COSTS FOR PREVENTIVE
COVERAGE SO PEOPLE ON MEDICARE
AND OTHERS ACTUALLY GET
PREVENTIVE COVERAGE AS WELL.
HELP BY RAISING
MILLIONAIRES AND TAKE SOME OF
THAT MONEY TO GIVE HEALTH CARE
CREDITS AND SUBSIDIES TO MIDDLE
CLASS PEOPLE SO THAT THEY CAN
AFFORD THEIR HEALTH CARE.
AND GET PREVENTIVE CARE AND
STAY HEALTHIER AND BECOME MORE
PRODUCTIVE.
ALL MAKES A GREAT DEAL OF RENS
SENS.
WE ARE SAYING TO PARENTS -- A
GREAT DEAL OF SENSE.
WE ARE SAYING TO PARENTS THAT
YOUR CHILDREN CAN STAY ON YOU
INSURANCE UNTIL THEY ARE 27
YEARS OLD.
WE ARE SAYING TH YOU CAN
NEVER BE DENIED BECAUSE --
INSURANCE COVERAGE BECAUSE YOU
HAVE A PRE-EXISTING CONDITION.
YOU CAN'T BE KICKED OFF YOUR
INSUNCE BECAUSE YOU GET SICK.
YOU CAN ONLY SPEND
OUT-OF-POCKET 12% OF YOUR
ANNUAL INCOME SO THAT YOU DON'T
GO BANKRUPT LIKE 1,700 PEOPLE
WENT BANKRUPT IN THE 17TH
CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, OR
1,700 FAMILIES WENT BANKRUPT IN
THE 1TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
LAST YEAR.
EXTEND PRESCRIPTION DRUG
COVERAGE TO SENIORS THROUGHOUT
THE YEAR, NOT ANY KIND OF
STOPPAGE THROUGHOUT -- IN THE
MIDDLE OF THE YEAR, AND MAKE
SURE THAT WE EXTEND THE LIFE OF
MEDICARE BY FIVE MORE YEARS
BECAUSE OF THESE REFORMS. C BREAD AND BUTTER
COMMONSENSE REFORM.
THIS IS NOT THE RADICAL KIND OF
REFORM OUR FRIENDS ON THE OTHER
SIDE WANT US -- WANT YOU PEOPLE
TO BELIEVE.
IT'S NOT WHAT GLENN BECK AND
RUSH LIMBAUGH AND ALL THE SCARE
TACTICS -- THE GOVERNMENT'S
COMING TO TAKE YOU OVER. IT'S NOT ANY OF OF THAT.
IT'S BASIC REFORMS THAT THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT.
AND LASTLY, LET ME JUST SAY,
PEOPLE STILL CONTINUE TO TALK
ABOUT THIS BEING AN ISSUE OF
FREEDOM. OUR FRIENDS ON THE OTHER SIDE
KEEP SAYING THIS IS ABOUT
LIBERTY AND FREEDOM.
AND YOU KNOW WHAT?
I AGREE WITH THEM.
THE PERSON THAT GOES BANKRUPT
BECAUSE THEY CAN'T AFFORD
HEALTH CARE IS NOT FREE IN THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
AND THE PERSON WHO PAYS TONS OF
MONEY INTO THE INSURANCE
INDUSTRY AND DOESN'T GET ANY
COVERAGE, THAT DOESN'T SEEM
LIKE YOU'RQ VERY FREE.
WHEN YOU'RE SICK AND CAN'T
AFFORD A DOCTOR, YOU'RE NOT
FREE.
AND LET'S TALK ABOUT FREEDOM IN
2009 AND 2010.
IT MEANS BEING HEALTHY,
PRODUCTIVE, GETTING WHAT YOU
PAY FOR, AND BEING ABLE TO
SUPPORT YOUR FAMILY AND YOUR BUSINESS.
THAT'S FREEDOM.
HOW FRY IS A BUSINESSMAN WHO'S
GOT TO PAY 30% INCREASE IN
HEALTH CARE COSTS EVERY YEAR?
DOESN'T SEEM VERY FREE TO ME.
MR. SPEAKER, WE'LL CONTINUE TO
TALK ABOUT THIS AND JOBS AND
OTHER ISSUES THAT ARE FACING
THIS COUNTRY AND WE APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE.
WITH THAT I YIELD BACK THE
BALANCE OF MY TIME.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME.
UNDER THE SPEAKER'S ANNOUNCED
POLICY OF JANUARY 6, 2009, THE
CHAIR RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN
FROM IOWA, MR. KING, FOR 60 MINUTES.
MRKING: THANK YOU, MR.
SPEAKER.
IT'S MY PRIVILEGE TO BE
RECOGNIZED BY YOU TO ADDRESS
THE -- YOU AND THE FLOOR OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES HERE
TONIGHT.
MY COLLEAGUES THAT I HAVE HAD
THIS GREAT HONOR AND PRIVILEGE
TO SERVE WIT THESE
YEARS AND THIS 111TH CONGRESS.
I SAT AND LISTENED TO MY
FR THE OTHER SIDE OF
THE AISLE AS THEY BEGAN TO TALK
THROUGH THIS HEALTH CARE
DEBATE, WHICH WE HAVE
ADDRESSED, I THINK, QUITE A
GREAT DEAL OVER THE LAST COUPLE
OF MONTHS.
AND NO LONGER IS IT A
LEGITIMATE POINT THAT WE
HAVEN'T HAD AN ADEQUATE TIME TO
DEBATE, ALTHOUGH I DON'T KNOW
THAT THERE THIS
CONGRESS THAT CAN READ 1,090 --
EXCUSE ME, 1,990 PAGES.
AND ANYONE WHO CAN DIGEST ALL
OF THAT AND READ THE AMENDMENT
THAT WAS 40 PAGES LONG THAT
TURNS THIS INTO 2,030 PAGES OF
A NATIONAL HEALTH CARE ACT THAT
AFFECTS EVERY ASPECT OF OUR
LIVES.
THIS IS NOT JUST NANNY STATE
CRADLE TO GRAVE.
THIS IS CONCEPTION TO NATURAL
DEATH OR EUTHANASIA DEPENDING
ON WHICH COMPONENT OF THE BILL
ONE CHOOSES TO APPLY.
THERE ARE CARVE OUTS FOR
EUTHANASIA.
THERE IS A STUPAK AMENDMENT
THAT IS PART OF THE BILL,
STUPAK-PITTS-CHRIS SMITH
AMENDMENT THAT IS A PRO-LIFE
AMENDMENT AND VERY VALUABLE TO
ME AND MANY OTHERS.
HOWEVER, HOWEVER THERE ARE
GRAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE BROAD
IMPLICATIONS OF THIS BILL AND
THE COMPONENTS OF IT THAT RUN
ANATHEMA TO THE AMERICAN DREAM.
I WOULD JUST ADDRESS SOME OF
THE THINGS THAT THE GENTLEMEN
SPOKE OF IN THE PREVIOUS HOUR.
ONE OF THEM IS THAT REPUBLICANS
ALLEGEDLY SAT AROUND AND DID
NOTHING WHILE THEY WERE IN THE
MAJORITY.
WE HAD A NARROW MAJORITY AND WE
DID SOMETHING.
WE PUSHED AN AGENDA THAT WAS
SEEKING TO IMPROVE THE HEALTH
CARE IN THIS COU
ELIMINATE -- REDUCE OR
ELIMINATE THE NECESSARY BURDEN
ON HEALTH CARE.
I MADE THE POINT AND I THANK
THE GENTLEMEN FOR YIELDING FROM
OHIO, I MADE THE POINT THAT WE
PASSED LAWSUIT ABUSE REFORM IN
THIS CONGRESS, I BELIEVE THE
YEAR WAS 2005.
THE LAWSUIT ABUSE THAT WAS
WORKED THROUGH THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHERE I SAT AND WHERE
LANGUAGE.
AND WE MODELED THIS AFTER, OF
ALL PLACES, CALIFORNIA.
CALIFORNIA INITIATIVE AND SINCE
THAT TIME TEXAS HAS TAKEN UP
THE CHARGE OF REDUCING LAWSUIT
ABUSE ON MEDICAL MALPRACTICE IN
TEXAS AND THE
EXITING STATE HAVE TURNED
AROUND AND MANY HAVE MOVED BACK
TO TEXAS AND STARTED THEIR
PRACTICES.
OTHER PRACTIONERS HAVE COME
INTO TEXAS AND NOW THEY DO HAVE
AN ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF DOCTORS
AND NURSES AND OTHER MEDICAL
PRACTIONERS THAT ARE THERE.
BUT THE COST THAT WAS DIMINISH BIDE THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO,
THE COST OF LAWSUIT ABUSE, EVEN
THOUGH THE BILL THAT WAS
OFFERED BY LEADERSHIP SCORED AT
ONLY $54 BILLION TO THE
GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO, 1% HE SAID
OF THE OVERALL HEALTH CARE
COSTS, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT
NUMBER, I DIDN'T RUN THOSE
NUMBERS, DOESN'T SEEM TO ME,
MR. SPEAKER, THAT $54 BILLI
IS A MINUSCULE AMOUNT.
DOESN'T SEEM TO ME THAT $54
BILLION IS LOOSE CHANGE.
IT DOESN'T SEEM TO ME THAT $54
BILLION IS PENCIL DUST, MR.
SPEAKER.
$54 BILLION IS REAL MONEY.
AND $54 BILLION IS, THOUGH, A
SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE OVERALL
COST OF LAWSUIT ABUS WHEN IT
COMES TO PROVIDING HEALTH CARE
IN AMERICA.
A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE OVERALL COST.
HERE ARE THE NUMBERS THAT
EMERGED WHEN ONE LOOKS INTO THE
UNDERLYING COST OF THE LAWSUIT ABUSE.
AND THE SCORE TH COULD COME
FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET
OFFICE CANNOT INCLUDE ALL OF
THIS BECAUSE THEY SIMPLY CAN'T
SCORE SOME OF THE ACTUAL COSTS
THAT DON'T INDEX DIRECTLY INTO
THE LAWSUITS THEMSELVES.
AND IT WORKS LIKE THIS.
THERE ARE HIGH COST IN PREMIUMS
THAT DOCTORS AND PROVIDERS ARE
PAYING, ESPECIALLY OB/GYN
DOCTORS, AND ACCESS TO THOSE
DOCTORS AND SERVICES ARE
GETTING MORE AND MORE LIMITED.
THERE ARE ALSO COSTS INVOLVED
WITH THE LITIGATION.
COSTS INVOLVED WITH THE
SETTLEMENTS WHETHER THEY ARE IN
COURT OR OUT-OF-COURT
SETTLEMENTS.
ONE MIGHT THINK THAT'S ALL THE
COST OF THE LAWSUIT ABUSE THAT
IS PART AND PARCEL, THE OVERALL
COST OF HEALTH CARE.
BUT AN EVEN GREATER COST, THE
COST OF UNNECESSARY TESTS AND
PROCEDURES THAT ARE UNDERGONE
BY PATIENTS IN THIS COUNTRY
DIRECTLIED -- DIRECTED BY
DOCTORS IN THIS COUNTRY TO
AVOID LAWSUITS, TO PROTECT
THEMSELVES IN THE EVENT OF
LAWSUITS, TO MINIMIZE THE RISK
AND TO ALSO HOLD DOWN THEIR
PREMIUMS FOR MALPRACTICE.
AND SO THE COST OVERALL OF
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, THE ABUSE
OF LAWSUITS FOR MEDICAL
MALPRACTICE IN AMERICA, THE
COST OF THE MALPRACTICE
PREMIUMS, COUPLED WITH THE COST
OF THE LITIGATION, COUPLED WITH
THE COST OF SETTLEMENTS, BOTH
IN AND OUT OF COURT, COUPLED
WITH THE UNNECESSARY TESTS, THE
DEFENSIVE MEDICINE THAT GETS --
THAT NEARLY EVERY PRACTITIONER
PRACTICES WHETHER IT IS
SOMETHING THEY ACTUALLY CAN
IDENTIFY OR WHETHER IT'S A
SUBLIMINAL SHIFT IN THEIR
POLICY, ALL OF THOSE THINGS NUMBER
THAT CAN BE APPLIED IS NOT
TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO, THE
LOWEST NUMBER CAN I FIND OUT
THERE BY ANYONE'S LOGICAL
REPRESENTATION IS 5.5%.
THE NUMBER THAT I TRUST THE
MOST IS THE 8.5% NUMBE THAT
COMES FROM THE HEALTH INSURANCE
UNDERWRITERS REPRESE
AND 8 1/2% IS A LOW NUMBER.
SOME OF THOSE NUMBERS GO UP TO
10.1% AND ON UP
24%, 28%, AND EVEN 30% OF
OVERALL HEALTH CARE COSTS.
I WILL RANGE UP IN THERE INTO
THAT 1/4 TO 1/3 OF THE OVERALL
COSTS BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S A
HARDER NUMBER TO DEFEND
ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE TRUE.
BUT I DO BELIEVE, I'M ON VERY
SOLID GROUND DEFENDING 8 1/2%
OF HEALTH CARE COSTS GOING TO
EITHER PREMIUMS FOR
MALPRACTICE, TRIAL LAWYERS,
THOSE SETTLEMENTS, HORS
D'OEUVRE MEDICINE.
8 1/2% OF THE OVERALL COST OF
PROVIDING HEALTH CARE TO
AMERICA COMES $203 BILLION A
YEAR.
THAT'S ONLY ONE YEAR.
THIS BILL GETS SCORED OVER 10
YEARS.
SO THAT -- THAT
OVER 10 YEARS EXCEEDS
TRILLION.
$2 TRILLION AND THE AGGREGATE
COSTS OF PREMIUMS AND
LITIGATION AND SETTLE -- SETTLEMENTS, WE'LL KEEP
EVERYBODY WHOLE.
THOSE ARE THE UNFORTUNATE WHO
ARE I'AY VICTIMS OF MEDICAL
MALPRACTICE, WE ARE GOING TO KEEP THEM WHOLE.
WE ARE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT
THEIR MEDICAL COSTS ARE PAID
FOR AND THEIR LOSS OF INCOME
ARE PAID FOR AND THERE'S PAIN
AND SUFFERING THERE, BUT NOT
THE NONECONOMIC DAMAGES, NOT
THAT COMPONENT THAT GOES OFF
INTO $7 MILLION FOR SPILLING A
CUP OF COFFEE ON ONE'S LAP AT
MCDONALD'S AS HAPPENED.
I UNDERSTAND THAT NEGOTIATED
DOWN AND REDUCED AFTER THE
FACT.
.
SO 8.5% OF OVERALL HEALTH CARE
COSTS GOING FOR LAWSUIT ABUSE,
AND WE CAN REFORM A LOT OF THAT.
WE CAN REFORM A LOT MORE THAN
54 MILLION -- $54 BILLION OF IT.
AND IT TOTALS IN ITS AGGREGATE
OVER $2 TRILLION, WHICH IN AND
OF ITSELF IS ENOUGH ACCORDING
TO THE C.B.O PAID FOR IN NANCY
PELOSI'S SOCIALIZED MEDICINE
PLAN, MR. SPEAKER.
I THINK IT PUTS IT IN A
PERSPECTIVE THAN IS FAR MORE
LEGITIMATE THAN TALKED ABOUT BY
THE GENTLEMEN IN THE PREVIOUS
HOUR WHO ANNOUNCED THAT I
MAKE LESS THAN $89,000 A YEAR
YOU ARE GOING TO GET A SUBSIDY
FOR YOUR HEALTH INSURANCE. $89,000 A YEAR.
AND WE ARE GOING TO SUBSIDIZE
HEALTH INSURANCE FOR PEOPLE
MAKING $89,000 A YEAR?
ARE THEY GOING TO BE PAYING THE
ALTE
WONDER, MR. SPEAKER?
I SUSPECT THAT WILL BE MANY
FAMILIES THAT THAT'S THE CASE.
WE SAW WHAT HAPPENED WHEN THE
MAJORITY SOUGHT TO CHANGE THE
SCHIP LEGISLATION THAT STATE CHILDREN'S HEALTH INSURANCE
PROGRAM THAT PROVIDES HEALTH
INSURANCE PREMIUMS FOR
LOW-INCOME -- KIDS IN
LOW-INCOME FAMILIES.
THAT PASSED IN 1997.
I REMEMBER IMPLEMENTING IT IN
1998 WHEN I WAS IN THE IOWA
STATE SENATE AT 200% OF
POVERTY.
THE STATES COULD HAVE ADJUSTED
THAT TO SOME DEGREE.
200% ABOVE POVERTY IS WHAT I
SUPPORTED.
AND SPEAKER PELOSI WANTED TO
CHANGE THAT SCHIP PROGRAM TO
400% ABOVE POV
HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUMS FOR
CHILDREN THAT ARE EARNING
-- THAT MEANT IF A LEEMS OF
FOUR MAKING -- FAMILIES OF FOUR
MAKING $102,000 A YEAR COULD
HAVE THEIR HEALTH INSURANCE
PAID FOR BY THE TAXPAYERS.
THE TAXPAYERS WHO PRESUMABLY
MANY OF THEM ARE MAKING LESS
THAN $102,000 A YEAR.
EEMED TO ME TO BE AN
OUTRAGEOUSLY HIGH INCOME TO HAVE THE HEALTH INSURANCE
PREMIUMS SIZED BY THE TAXPAYERS
AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
SINCE THAT TIME, THIS VERY
ARABS APPETITE TO SHARE -- THIS
VERACIOUS APPETITE TO SHARE
THIS WEALTH, A LOT OF THOSE
INVESTMENTS ARE INVESTMENTS
THAT FACILITATE THE CREATION OF
JOBS OR THEY CREATE THE JOBS
THEMSELVES SCOOP FROM THAT
CAPITAL AND DISTRIBUTE THAT TO
THOSE WHO MAKE LESS TAKES AWAY
THE IN THOSE WHO
MAKE LESS TO MAKE MORE.
WHY WOULD ANYONE GO OUT AND
TAKE A RISK AND INVEST CAPITAL
AND START A BUSINESS AND EMPLOY
PEOPLE AND CREATE GOODS AND
SERVICES THAT HAVE VALUE TO
THIS ECONOMY IF THEY' JUST
GOING TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNM
-- IF THE FEDERAL GO
JUST GOING TO GO IN AND TAX
YOUR INCOME, KEEP THEM FROM ESTABLISHING A CAPAL BASE SO
YOU CAN GROW THE JOBS AND TAKE
THE MONEY YOU EARN AND FUNNEL
IT OVER HERE AND TAKE THE
POSITION THAT IF YOU MAKE
$88,999 A YEAR, UNCLE SAM WILL
CUT YOU A CHECK?
AND THAT CHECK WILL GO TO AS
LONG AS YOU INVEST IT IN HEALTH
INSURANCE FOR YOUR FAMILY,
HEALTH INSURANCE FOR YOUR KIDS
THAT ARE ALREADY COVERED,
AREN'T THEY, BECAUSE THIS
CONGRESS PASSED AN ULTIMATELY
$300% OF POVERTY.
SO THAT LOWERED THAT NUMBER
DOWN TO 70,000, SOMETHING LIKE
THAT IN MY STATE.
BUT SPEAKING OF 740,000, THAT
HAPPENS TO BE EXACT -- 70,000,
THAT HAPPENS TO BE EXACTLY THE
NUMBER OF FAMILIES IN AMERICA
THAT WOULD QUALIFY FOR FEDERAL
FUNDING FOR THE HEALTH
INSURANCE PREMIUMS FOR THEIR
CHILDREN WHO ARE ALSO PAID THE
RICH MAN'S TAX, THE ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX.
70,000 FAMILIES IN AMERICA
WOULD HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE
PREMIUMS
PAID FOR BY THE TAXPAYER.
MEANWHILE, THEY'RE WRIT
EXTRA CHECK FOR THE ALTERNATIVE
MINIMUM TAX BECAUSE THEY MAKE
TOO MUCH MONEY IN THE EYES OF UNCLE SAM.
SEEM A LITTLE PARADOXIAL, MR.
SPEAKER?
SEEM A LITTLE BIT INCONSISTENT?
SEEM A LITTLE ILL LOGICAL?
WELL, IT'S GOVERNMENT, AFTER ALL.
BUT THE STATEMENT THAT
REPUBLICANS DID NOTHING IS NOT
A FACTUAL STATEMENT.
IT'S NOT EVEN AN OPINION.
IT'S A FACT
THIS HOUSE PASSED REFORM
LEGISLATION IN SEVERAL
DIFFERENT CATEGORIES AN
FOUGHT EVERY STEP OF THE WAY BY
DEMOCRATS AND, BY THE WAY, WHEN
IT DID GET OUT OF T
SPITE OF THEM THEN IT WAS
BLOCKED IN THE SENATE.
I SAID AT THE TIME ON THE
MALPRACTICE -- THE LAWSUIT
ABUS REFORM THAT BLOCK THAT
TOOK PLACE IN THE SENATE WAS
THE RESULT OF THE SENATE
A SUBSIDIARY OF THE TRIAL
LAWYERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA.
SINCE THAT TIME THAT INVESTMENT
SEEMS TO HAVE PAID OFF IN THE , AND
TODAY WE HAVE A HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES THAT DOES NOT
HAVE ONE DOLLAR WORTH OF
LAWSUIT ABUSE REFORM IN A $1
TRILLION TO
SOCIALIZED MEDICINE PLAN.
NOW, HOW COULD ANY
SUCH INFLUENCE ON THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES AND PRESUMABLY
STILL, AND I THINK EVEN
SO, IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE
THAT $2 TRILLION IN THE
AGGREGATE OF
OUR HEALTH CARE IN AMERICA OVER
THIS PERIOD OF 10 YEARS, MORE
THAN THERE ARE 2 TRILLION AND
WE CAN'T FIND ONE DOLLAR WORTH
OF SAVINGS AND LAWSUIT ABUSE REFORM?
NOT ONE DOLLAR IN THIS BILL
THAT IS A BILL THAT WAS SENT TO
THIS FLOOR BY SPEAKER PELOSI.
NOT ONE DOLLAR.
AND YET THE SAME PEOPLE
ADVOCATE FOR CUTTING MEDICARE
REIMBURSEMENT RATES BY HALF A
TRILLION DOLLARS.
ALMOST $500 BILLION -- TAKEN OUT OF OUR
MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENTS,
MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENTS
PAY 80% OF THE COSTS OF
DELIVERING THE SERVICES AND THE
COST OF DELIVERING THE SERVICES
IS NOT A COST CALCULATED BY THE
PROCEED ADVISERS, BY THE HEALTH
CARE PRACTIONERS, BY THE
DOCTORS AND NURSES AND
HOSPITALS
COST OF DELIVERING THE SERVICES
IS A NUMBER THAT'S PRODUCED BY
MEDICARE ITSELF.
AND THEN IT GETS A POINT EIGHT
MULTIPLIER ACROSS THAT NUMBER
AND THAT'S WHAT THEY PAY AT
MEDICARE.
AND SO THE WHITE HOUSE HAS
TAKEN THE POSITION THAT THERE
IS WASTE, FRAUD AND ABUSE IN
OUR MEDICARE AND THEY'RE GOING
TO CUT THAT OUT AND THEY HAVE
FOUND SOME BILLIONS OF DOLLARS
IN SAVINGS.
THESE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF
SAVINGS THAT THEY CAN PROVIDE
TO REDUCE AN ELIMINATE WASTE,
FRAUD AND ABUSE IN MEDICAR
SEEM TO BE BAI
OF A -- AMORPHOUS.
WE ARE GOING TO GO IN AND PAY
FOR SOCIALIZED -- I PUT THAT IN
QUOTES WHEN I SAY THAT,
SPEAKER.
THEIR SOCIALIZE MEDICINE PLAN,
CLOSED QUOTE, BY REDUCING AND
PERHAPS ELIMINATING WASTE,
FRAUD AND ABUSE IN MEDICARE
REIMBURSEMENT.
SO WHAT TO THEY DO?
THEY CUT $500 BILLION, HALF A
TRILLION DOLLARS OUT OF
MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT RATES
AND THEN HAVE NOT PUT THEIR
FINGER ON WHERE THE ABUSE IS,
WHERE THE FRAUD IS, WHERE THE
WASTE IS.
IT'S, TRUST US, WE KNOW WHAT
WE'RE DOING.
REMINDS ME OF A SATURDAY NIGHT
SITCOM THAT I USED TO WATCH
OCCASIONALLY AND IT WAS CALLED
"SLEDGEHAMMER."
SLEDGEHAMMER WAS A DETECTIVE
AND HE HAD A SIDE KICK THAT
WOULD GO THROUGH A HALF-HOUR
ROUTINE OF CRIMINALS DOING BAD
THINGS, INVESTIGATING THEM.
AND NEAR THE END OF THE SHOW
SOMETHING WOULD HAPPEN SUCH AS
SLEDGEHAMMER WOULD FALL DOWN
THESS CAN LATOR, TIP OFF THE
RAILING -- FALL DOWN THE
ESCALATOR, TIP OFF THE RAILINGS.
ANSWERED WHEN THE -- AND WHEN
THE DUST WAS
SLEDGEHAMMER WOULD FALL ON THE
CRIMINAL AND THEN SAY, I TOLD
YOU, TRUST ME.
I KNOW WHAT I WAS DOING.
WELL, I HAVE THAT LEVEL OF
CONFIDENCE IN ADMINISTRATION
WHO SAY THEY ARE
TENS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN
WASTE, FRAUD AND ABUSE AND
CAN'T POINT THEIR
PASS THIS NATIONAL HEALTH CARE
ACT, THEN WE WILL GO INTO
ACTION AND SAVE THIS M
PAY FOR IT.
BUT IF WE DON'T AND
HAVE AN ADMINISTRATION THAT'S
WILLING TO TOLERATE TENS OF
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN THEIR
ALLEGED WASTE, FRAUD AND ABUSE
IN MEDICARE IS IT THEY'RE
HOLDING A RIGHT TO A LEGITIMATE
INTEGRITY AND FISCAL
RESPONSIBILITY IN OUR
GOVERNMENT?
ARE THEY HOLDING THAT RIGHT TO
A LEGITIMATE RESPONSIBLE
GOVERNMENT HOSTAGE, HOSTAGE TO
A BILL?
A BILL THAT'S SOCIALIZED
THIS -- AND SO IF WE PASS THIS
SOCIALIZED MEDICINE AND IT GOES
TO THE PRESIDENT WHO I BELIEVE
WILL SIGN ANYTHING THAT SAYS
NATIONAL HEALTH CARE, I TELL
YOU IT'S NOT ANY SIGNIFICANT
SPEAKER.
AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT BECAUSE
THE PROVIDERS THAT I HAVE ARE
GETTING SIGNIFICANTLY LESS
COSTS TO DELIVER THAT SERVICE
IN IOWA.
WE ARE NOT ONLY THE LOWEST
STATE IN THE UNION IN
RE
ALSO PROVIDE CONSISTENTLY SOME
OF THE
BY THE CONSISTENT MEASURES THAT
COME OUT.
IOWA RANKS IN THE TOP FIVE
AFTER TIME AFTER TIME AND
PRACTICE AFTER PRACTICE AND THE
AGGREG
OFTEN NUMBER ONE, OFTEN MORE
OFTEN NUMBER TWO.
BUT WE ARE IN THE TOP FIVE
THE MEDICAL OUTCOMES, AND YET
WE'RE THE LOWEST IN THE NATION
IN REIMBURSEMENT RATES.
AND IOWA IS, AND I CAN SAY THIS
WITH GREAT CONFIDENCE, THE VERY
BEST COMBINATION OF COST AND
QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE
DELIVERED IN THE STATE BUT THE
LOWEST REIMBURSEMENT RATES IN THE NATION.
AND NOW THIS WHITE HOUSE WANTS
TO CUT HALF A TRILLION DOLLARS
FROM MEDICARE REIMBURSEMENT
RATES AND MY STATE, I BELIEVE,
IS THE MOST SENIOR STATE IN THE UNION.
WE HAVE THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGE
OF OUR POPULATION OVER THE AGE
OF 85 IN THE STATES OF THE
UNION, INCLUDING MY MOTHER. 32 COUNTIES IN WESTERN
IOWA, OF THE 99 COUNTIES IN
IOWA AND AMONG THE 32 THAT I
REPRESENT, 10 OF THE 12 MOST
SENIOR COUNTIES IN IOWA ARE IN
THE FIFTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT.
THE DISTRICT I REPRESENT.
AND SO I BELIEVE I REPRESENT
THE MOST SENIOR CONGRESSIONAL
DISTRICT IN AMERICA.
A HALF A TRILLION CUT IN
MEDICARE BASED ON THE VERY
QUESTIONABLE AND DOUBTFUL
ALLEGATION THAT THERE ARE TENS
OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN
WASTE, FRAUD AND ABUSE IN
MEDICARE, I'M UNCONVINCED THAT
IT EXISTS, MR. SPEAKER.
I THINK IT EXISTS IN THE LARGE
CITIES OF THE COUNTRY.
I THINK IT SHOULD BE
RELENTLESSLY AND PERSISTENTLY ROOTED OUT.
AND WE SHOULD TAKE THOSE
CRIMINALS AND DO THE WALK WITH
THEM AND GET THEM LOCKED UP IN
PRISON WHERE THEY BELONG.
BUT YOU DON'T HOLD -- YOU DON'T
HOLD A PRINCIPLE THAT THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO
WHICH IS LEGITIMATE LAW
ENFORCEMENT AND THE ELIMINATION
OF WASTE, FRAUD AND ABUSE, YOU
DON'T HOLD THAT HOSTAGE TO AN
ULTIMATUM THAT WE HAVE TO PASS
A NATIONAL HEALTH CARE ACT,
SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, IN ORR
TO HAVE GOOD GOVERNMENT.
GOOD GOVERNMENT IS THE RIGHT OF
THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE
AMER
THAT RIGHT.
WITH THE PROMISE THAT OR THE
ALLEGATION MADE BY THE
GENTLEMAN, THE PR
THAT REPUBLICANS DON'T HAVE ANY
SOLUTIONS, IN FACT, THE
PRESIDENT SAID HIMSELF THAT THE REPUBLICANS DON'T HAVE
SOLUTIONS, THAT STATEMENT WAS
NEVER SUPPORTABLE BY FACT.
THERE HAVE BEEN AT LEAST 42
PIECES O LEGISLATION, SOME OF
THEM COMPREHENSIVE, INTRODUCED
BY REPUBLICANS IN THIS 111TH
CONGRESS ALONE.
AND THE DIFFEREN
LOGICAL, RATIONAL FREE MARKET
FREEDOM SOLUTIONS THAT DO
INTERFERE AND IN FACT HEAL UP
TO SOME DEGREE THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN DOCTORS AND PATIENTS.
AND I TALKED ABOUT ENDING
LAWSUIT ABUSE.
THE NEXT ONE IS TO
PEOPLE TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE
ACROSS STATE LINES.
FOR EXAMPLE, A YOUNG MAN 25
YEARS
PAY APPROXIMATELY $6,000 FOR A
HEALTH INSURANCE POLICY. FACT.
HE COULD BUY IT IN KENTUCKY
ACROSS THE STATE LINES WOULD
COST HIM $1,000.
YES, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE IN MANDATES.
THAT'S PART OF
BUT THEY HAVE PUT SO MANY
MANDATES ON THE HEALTH
INSURANCE PREMIUMS IN NEW
JERSEY THAT YOU DON'T HAVE
THOSE KIND OF OPTIONS.
AND BECAUSE OF THE REGULATIONS
AND THE BURDEN AND THE COST AND
MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, THE WHITE
HOUSE COULD BE RIGHT ON SOME
WASTE, ABUSE UP
THERE, I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO
WORKING WITH THEIR
GOVERNOR-ELECT AS HE BECOMES
GOVERNOR AND MAYBE WE CAN HELP
ROOT OUT SOME OF THE WASTE,
FRAUD AND ABUSE AND I'D LIKE TO
SEE NEW JERSEY REWARDED FOR DOING IT.
BUT IF PEOPLE IN AMERICA CAN
BUY INSURANCE ACROSS STATE
LINES, AND THAT $6,000 POLICY
FOR THE 25-YEAR-OLD MAN IN NEW
JERSEY BECOMES A DEMRR 1,000
POLICY FOR THE 25-YEAR-OLD MAN
IN KENTUCKY, THAT DRAMATICALLY
REDUCES THE COST OF
INSURANCE PREMIUMS IN AMERICA.
ANOTHER THING THAT DRAMATICALLY
REDUCES THE HEALTH INSURANCE
PREMIUMS IN AMERICA IS WHEN
PEOPLE HAVE ACCESS TO AND CAN
AFFORD TO PURCHASE
CATASTROPHIC HEALTH INSURANCE.
CATASTROPHIC IS THE ESSENTIAL
COMPONENT OF HEALTH INSURANCE.
AND THAT WORKS IN THIS WAY.
ESPECIALLY WHEN WE HAVE HEALTH
SAVINGS ACCOUNTS.
THOSE HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS
THAT WHEN WE PASSED THE
H.S.A.'S IN 2003 IN THIS
CONGRE
INTO LAW, IF A YOUNG COUPLE --
AND I DID THIS IN ROUND NUMBERS
SO AT AGE 20 HAD INVESTED THE
MAXIMUM AMOUNT INTO THEIR
H.S.A. FOR THAT ANNUAL YEAR,
$5,100 A YEAR FOR AOUPLE SAY
AT AGE 20 AND MAXED OUT EACH
YEAR INDEXED TO INFLATION AND
SPENT $2,000 IN REAL DOLLARS IN
LEGITIMATE HEALTH CARE COSTS
AND ACCRUED THAT AT 4% -- AND
WHEN I DID THIS THING IT WAS A
LOGICAL THING AND IT WILL BE A
LOGICAL THING SHALL BUT
THROUGHOUT THEIR WORKING LIFE
WHEN THEY
MEDICARE ELIGIBILITY RATE,
HAVING INVESTED THE MAXIMUM IN
THE H.S.A.'S DURING THAT PERIOD
OF TE AND SPENT $2,000 A YEAR
OUT, THEY ARRIVE AT RETIREMENT
WITH A HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT
OF $950,000
MAYBE THEY SPEND A LITTLE BIT LESS.
$1 MILLION IN AN H.S.A., AND
WHAT'S THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S
INVESTMENT IN THAT, MR.
SP WELL, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
WANTS TO TAX THAT MILLION
DOLLARS.
THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T WANT
PEOPLE TO HAVE ANY MONEY FOR
ANY USE OF THEIR OWN DISCRETION
WHEN THEY ARRIVE AT MEDICARE
ELIGIBILITY AGE.
.
GET THEIR EXERCISE, DO THE
ANNUAL CHECKUPS, AND BE ABLE TO
SAVE THOSE COSTS -- THE HIGH
COST OF HEALTH MAINTENANCE BY
GOOD HEALT
THEIR PREMIUMS LERED BECAUSE
OF IT AND SEE IT REWA
GROWING HETH SAVINGS ACCOUNT
SO THEY CAN ARRIVE A
RETIREMENT WITH, LET'S JUST
SAY, $950,000 IN THAT ACCOUNT?
NOW, THE LIABILITY THAT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS TODAY IN
TODAY'S DOLLARS, TO BE FAIR,
MR. SPEAKER, WHEN SOMEONE
ARRIVES AT MEDICARE ELIGIBILITY
AGE, THAT MEANS THAT THE COST
OF THAT ENTITLEMENT FOR THE
BALANCE OF
IS ABOUT $72,000 PER
INDIVIDUAL.
. YOU HAVE A COUPLE
SO THE DIFFERENCE IS ROUGHLY
ABOUT $800,000 AND THEN
ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION OF THAT LIABILITY ITSELF.
.6 C
LIABILITY ITSELF.
WHY WOULDN'T THIS CONGRESS WANT
TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO INVEST IN
THEIR HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT AND
PROVIDE INCENTIVES FOR HEALTHY
PRACTICES WHILE EXERCISE, DIET
AND CHECKUPS SO THAT HEALTH
SAVINGS ACCOUNT BECAME A
RETIREMENT FUND AND WHY WOULDN'T
WE AT LEAST AT A MINIMUM OFFER
THEM THAT IF YOU CAN ARIVE AT
RETIREMENT AND MEDICARE
ELIGIBILITY AND BE ABLE TO
PURCHASE A MEDICARE
POLICY THAT WOULD TAKE THAT
INDIVIDUAL OR COUPLE OFF OF THE
ENTITLEMENT ROLLS, WHY WOULDN'T
WE THEN TELL THEM, KEEP THE
CHANGE, MR. SPEAKER?
WHY WOULDN'T WE SAY TO THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE, TAKE THIS
EGG THAT YOU HAVE MANAGED AND
RETIRE ON, GIVE YOURSELF A
MO
OTHER
PROVIDING THAT SOCIAL SECURITY
IS STILL THERE OR WILL IT TO YOUR CHILDREN?
WHY WOULD WE WANT TO KEP PEOPLE
DEPENDENT UPON A GOVERNMENT
PROGRAM THAT WILL END UP
RATIONING HEAL
BY THE WAY, WE'R
MR. SPEAKER.
IT WAS ANNOUNCED TODAY THERE WAS
A GOVERNMENT DIRECTIVE THAT WENT
OUT, A PANEL OF HEALTH CARE
ADVISORY PANELHAT WOMEN SHOULD
DELAY THEIR MAMMOGRAMS UNTIL
AGED 50 AND THEN HAVE THOSE
MAMMOGRAMS EVERY OTHER YEAR
BECAUSE THERE IS TOO MUCH
TESTS DONE EVERY YEAR.
THINK ABOUT THIS, MR. SPEAKER.
IS THAT REALLY IT OR IS THIS A
FEDERAL DIRE
RATIONING HEALTH CARE?
WHAT ABOUT THAT 41-YEAR-OLD
WOMAN WHO ENDS UP WITH BREAST
CANCER AND DOESN'T GET A TEST
UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE?
WHAT ABOUT THE DIFICULTY OF
TREATING THAT DISEASE OF BREAST
CANCER WHEN IT GOES BEYOND THAT
POINT WHEN IT CAN BE HANDLED
WITHOUT
WE HAVE A DIRECTIVE THAT CAME
OUT FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
THAT DELAYS BY 10 YEARS A
RECOMMENDION THAT WOMEN GET
MAMMOGRAMS AND SPACE THOSE
MAMMOGRAMS OUT FROM ONE YEAR TO
TWO YEARS.
SO THAT 50 YEAR OLDS GETTING A
MAMMOGRAM ON THEIR 5
52 BIRTHDAYS AND SO ON, THAT
CUTS THE TESTS THAT ARE GOING ON
IN HIS COUNTRY IF EVERYBODY
FOLLOWS THAT DIRECTIVE.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OU
BE GIVING THOSE KIND OF
RECOMMENDATIONS.
BUT I WIL SUBMIT, MR. SPEAKER,
THAT THIS IS A LITTLE PREVIEW, A
LITTLE WINDOW INTO WHAT THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULD BE
DOING IF THIS SOCIALIZED BILL
SHOULD FIND ITS WAY THROUGH THE
SENATE, THROUGH CONFERENCE AND
OFF THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE AND
SENATE TO THE PRESIDENT'S DESK
THAT WILL SIGN ANYTHING.
THIS IS A LITTLE PREVIEW OF WHAT
WE'LL SEE.
WE'LL SEE RULES AND REGULATIONS
HARD RULES, NOT JUST
RECOMMENDATIONS AND IT WILL BE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S PAYING FOR
THIS, SO THAT MEANS YOU DON'T
GET A HIP REPLACEMENT OR A KNEE
RE
THEY WILL DECLARE END OF LIFE.
THAT HAS SOCIALIZED MEDICINE AND
MANY OF THE PEOPLE THERE - A
NUMBER WAS PUBLISHED THE OTHER
DAY THAT 4,000 BABIES ARE BOR
IN GREAT BRITIN IN THE HALLWAY,
NOT IN THE O.B. SECTION, BECAUSE
THEY DON'T HAVE ROOM, BECAUSE
THE RATIONING OF HEALTH CARE AND
LACK OF PRACTITIONERS
WOMEN IN LABOR TO BACK UP IN THE
HALL WAYS AND HE THEIR BABIES
THERE RATHER THAN THE DELIVERY ROOM.
THAT IS ONE PIECE OF DATA
ONE COUNTRY THAT IS LOWER
POPULATION THAN WE ARE IN THE
UNITED STATES.
I SUGGEST TWO THINGS THAT
REPUBLICANS ARE FOR, ENDING
LAWSUIT ABUSE,
PEOPLE OWN THEIR POLICY WHEN
THEY LEAVE THEIR JOB OR MOVE
FROM THEIR STATE, WHATEVER THAT
CHANGE IN THEIR LIFE MIGHT BE
THAT IT'S THEIR POLICY AND GET
TOAKE IT WITH THEM AND THEY
OWN IT AND THAT WILL GIVE THEM
THE FREEDOM AND MOBILITY FROM
JOB TO JOB, FREDOM TO BE
INDENDENT, FREEDOM TO MANAGE
THEIR OWN HEALTH CARE.
ANOTHER COMPONENT OF THIS, MR.
SPEAKER IS 100% FUL
DEDUCTIBILITY OF EVERYBODY'S
HEALTH INSURANCE PRELIMINARY YULLS.
THAT IS SOMETHING I'M CONFIDENT
WOULD BE RIDICULED BY THE OTHER
SIDE OF THIS ARGUMENT.
100% FULL DEDUCTIBILITY.
WHY WOULD IT BE THAT IN AMERICA
A CORPORATION THAT'S HIRING
PEOPLE CAN OFFER THEM A PACKAGE
OF SALARY AND BENEFITS PLAN,
WRITE OFF THAT SALARY AND
BENEFITS PLAN AS IF IT WERE
WAGES, 10%, BEFORE TAXES, ABOVE
THE LINE WRITEOFF.
THAT'S AL RIGHT.
WHY WOULD IT NOT BE THE
UNLESS IT TOOK A SALARY OUT AND
INCORPORATED IT TO TAKE THE
SALARY OUT.
AN INDIVIDUAL PARTNER
DEDUCT IN THE SAME FASHION 100%
OF THE OVERALL HEALTH INSURANCE
PREMIUMS LIKE AN INSURANCE
COMPANY
I'M GOING TO SUGGEST AN
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE HERE IN
AMERICA THAT IF ANYTHING IS
DEDUCTLE FOR ANY ENTITY, IT
OUGHT TO BE DEDUCTIBLE FOR EVERY
ENTITY.
I CAN'T THINK OF A SINGLE
EXCEPTION THAT TELLS ME THAT
WOULD BE WRONG.
I WILL TAKE THIS POSITION AND
HAVE THAT IF CORPORATION X, Y OR
Z CAN DEDUCT A PREMIUM FOR A
CADILLAC PLAN OR AVERAGE RUN OF
THE MILL HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN,
IF THEY CAN DEDUCT 100% OF THAT
INSURANCE PLAN SO SHOULD JOE THE
PLUMEROR JOHN AND MARY THE GAS
STATION PEOPLE, ANYB
THAT IS OUT THERE OR AN
INDIVIDUAL THAT IS WORKING FOR A
WAGE AND WANTS TO GO OUT IN THE
MARKET AND BUY THE
I BELIEVE THAT THAT PREMIUM
SHOULD BE 100% DEDUCTIBLE IF WE
DID THAT JUST SIMPLY PROVIDE
FULL DEDUCTIBILITY.
THAT WILL ENSURE ANOTHER MILLION
AMERICANS AND THAT GIVES US
EQUITY IN THIS DEDUCTIBILITY.
I TALKED ABOUT H.S.A. EXPANSION.
WE ALSO NEED TRANSPARENCY IN
BILLING.
WE HAVE TODAY COST SHIFTING
GOING ON IN THE HEALTH INSURANCE
INDUSTRY AND HEALTH CARE
INDUSTRY.
AND WHEN YOU HAVE MEDICARE
REIM
IN SIGNIFICANTLY LESS AT THE
COST OF DELIVERING THAT SERVICE,
THE COST OF DELIVERING THE
SERVICE AT A MINIMUM ALONG WITH
SOME PROFIT MARGIN, WHICH IS A
GOOD THING, IS AN INCENTIVE
FOREVER PEOPLE TO DO A GOOD
THING.
BUT THE COST SHIFTING TAKES
PLACE WHEN MEDICARE DOESN'T PAY
IT ALL AND GOES ON TO SOME OTHER
ENTITY WHETHER IT BE A PRIVATE
HEALTH INSURANCE PROVIDER OR AN
INDIVIDUAL THAT IS - WE NEED
TRANSPARENCY.
WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO TAKE A
LOOK AT THESE BILLINGS AND I'M
NOT INTERESTED IN THE NAMES OF
THE PATIENTS BUT I'M INTERESTED
IN THE NAMES OF THE
INSTITUTIONS.
AND THE CONSISTENTY OR LACK OF
CONSISTENCY.
IF YOU ARE GOING TO GET A HIP
REPLACEMENT IN SAN FRANCISCO,
THOSE PEOPLE THAT GET THAT HIP
REPLACEMENT SHOULD PAY THE SAME
PRICE AND SHOULD BE BILED THE
SAME PRICE AND SHOULD BE A
LEGITIMATE ATTEMPT TO PAY THE
SAME PRICE.
IF BILL GATES GOES IN AND STEVE
KING AND JOE THE PLUMBER, IT'S
ALL THE SAME PROCEDURES FROM ALL
THE SAME PROVIDERS, IT OUGHT TO
BE THE SAME BILL.
IF WE DID
TRANSPARENCY, THAT WILL BRIN
TOGETHER AND REDUCE THE
SHIFTING BECAUSE THE AMERICAN
PEOPLE WILL UNDERSTAND THEY HAVE
TO GO SHOPPING AND HAVE TO
GOISHT AND HAVE TO ADVOCATE AND
IF THEY HAVE THEIR HEALTH
SAVINGS ACCOUNTHAT THEY ARE
MANAGING, THEY WILL HAVE AN
INCENTIVE TO GOISHT FOR A HE
CARE COST AND OUTCOME THAT IS
FAVORABLE TO THEM.
INSTEAD, WE ARE PATIENTS IN AMERICA.
WE ARE A LIKE LIKE SHEEP.
WE GET LED INTO HEAL
TIME, THE PATIENT IN AMERICA
DOESN'T PAY THE BILL AND NOT
CONCERNED ABOUT THE COST.
THEY SHOW UP AT THE CLINIC AND
THE DOCTOR EXAMINES THEM AND
SAYS YOU NEED TO GO TO A
SPECIALIST AND RUN TH
SHOW UP AT THE HOSPITAL, THE
SURGERY IS PERFORMED, IF THAT
HAPPENS TO BE WHAT IS ORDERED
AND THEY GENERALLY HEAL UP, GET
GREAT CARE, SOME DON'T ADDRESS
THE BILL, BUT THEY KNOW SOMEONE
ELSE IS PAYING THE BILL AND NOT
CONCERNED ABOUT THE OVERALL COST
OF THEIR HEALTH CARE.
IF AN ASPIRIN COSTS 20 BUCKS,
THEY AREN'T GOING TO RAISE THE ISSUE.
IF THEY ARE NEGOTIATIN
TRYING TO HOLD THE NEST E
THE HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS,
THEN THEY WILL LOK AT THE COSTS
AND LOOK AT THE TRANSPARENCY IN
BILLING AND JUST THE
TRANSPARENCY IT CIVIL WILL BE A
RESTRAINT FROM THE COST SHIFTING
AND THE COST SHIFTING IS KIND OF
A BIG, NOT MUCH SPOKEN PROBLEM
THAT WE HAVE WITH HEALTH CARE IN AMERICA.
WE ARE ALSO FOR ASSOCIATION
HEALTH CARE PLANS.
AND THIS IS REPUBLICANS.
MOVED ALSO THROUGH THIS CONGRESS
THAT WAS BLOCKED BY DEMOCRATS
THAT ALLOWS PEOPLE OR
PROFESSIONS TO JOIN TOGETHER AND
BARGAIN AND NEGOTIATE AND BUY
INSURANCE PACKAGES WITHIN THEIR
PROFESSIONS.
LET'S SAY THE PLUMMERS GET
CREDIT UNIONS EXIST AND THEY
HAVE A MEMBERSHIP THAT EXISTS,
WE CAN LET PEOPLE BUY HEALTH
INSURANCE BY ASSOCIATING AND
BUYING HEALTH INSURANCE.
AND A PIECE OF THIS THAT I
BRIEFLY MENTIONED THAT NEEDS T
BE STRONGLY SUSTAINED IN THIS
HEALTH INSURANCE DEBATE
CATASTROPHIC INSURANCE.
CATASTROPHIC
INSURANCE THAT AS OUR HEALTH
SAVINGS ACCOUNTS GROW, WE END
WITH A NEST EG, I GAVE YOU A
DESCRIPTION, MR. SPEAKER OF HOW
A YOUNG COUPLE ARRIVES AT
$950,000 AT THE AGE OF
RETIREMENT.
LET'S MANAGE THIS IN TERMS OF
$5,000, $10,000, $20,000 IN AN
H.S.A.
IF I'M A YOUNG FAMILY AND I
HAPPEN TO HAVE BEEN WORKING FOR
FIVE YEARS AND BEEN ABLE
ACCUMLUATE $20,000 IN MY HEALTH
SAVINGS ACCOUNT, I'M PRETTY
COMFORTABLE TO NEGOTIATE THE
LOWER PREMIUM WITH A $5,000
DEDUCTIBLE OR EVEN A $10,000,
$15,000 OR $20,000 DEDUCTIBLE.
THAT TAKES THE PREMIUMS DOWN
DRAMATICALLY AND PROVIDES
INCENTIVE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL TO
PAY OUT OF POCKET OR OUT OF THE
HEALTH SAVINGS ACOUNT.
BUT TO KEP THAT NEST EGG IN
TACT.
BUT INSTEAD OF PAYING THAT
HIGHER PREMIUM, BY THE WAY, IF
YOU ARE 40 IN A FAMILY OF FOUR
IN INDIANAPOLIS,
THAT FAMILY WOULD TODAY BE
PAYING $535 A
HEALTH INSURANCE.
NOW IF YOU CAN RAISE THAT
DEDUCTIBLE AND RAISE T
CO-PAYMENT COMPONENT OF IT, THEN
THAT PREMIUM WOULD GO DOWN AND
THE SAVINGS WOULD BE SOMETHING
THAT GOES BACK INTO AND AT
FIGURATIVELY, IF NOT LITERALLY,
INTO THE HEALTH SAVINGS ACOUNT,
THE INCENTIVE FOR PEOPLE TO
PREMIUMS AND THE INCENTIVE TO
GROW THE HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT
NEEDS TO BE EXPANDED, NOT
ELIMINATED.
BUT I HAVEN'T MET ANYONE WHO CAN
POINT TO THIS HEALTH CARE BILL,
THIS 1,90-PAGE BILL THAT CAN
TELL ME THAT HEALTH SAVINGS
ACCOUNTS CAN EVEN SURVIVE THIS
BILL IN ITSELF.
THROUGH HERE REPUBLICAN
SOLUTIONS, STEVE KING SOLUTIONS
FOR HEALTH CARE.
SOME OF THESE WE PASSED OUT O THIS HOUSE.
IT IS FALSE TO SAY REPUBLICANS
HAVE DONE NOTHING.
THRECORD IS REPLETE WITH
LEGISLATION THAT HAS PASSED THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND LEGISLATION THAT HAS BEEN
INTRODUCED INTO THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES AT LEAST 42
BLOCKED BY DEMOCRATS, AULT
BLOCKED BY THE SPEAKER OF THE
HOUSE.
THESE LOGICAL SOLUTIONS THAT I
HAVE LISTED, INCLUDING ENDINGS
LAWSUIT ABUSE, BUYING INSURANCE
ACROSS STATE
FOR PORTABILITY, 10%
DEDUCTIBILITY OF HEALTH
INSURANCE PREMIUMS EXPANDING
HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS,
PROVIDING FOR TRANSPARENCY IN
BILLING, PROVIDING FOR
ASSOCIATION HEALTH CARE PLANS
AND PROTECTIN
INSURANCE, ALL OF THOSE ARE
REPUBLICAN PRINCIPLES, MANY OF
THOSE HAVE BEEN BLOCKED BY THIS
DEMOCRAT CONGRESS.
AND I THINK IT IS NOT A QUESTION
OF WHETHER REPUBLICANS HAD IDEAS.
WE HAVE ALL KIND
WE HAVE MOVED SOME OF THEM,
DEMOCRATS HAVE BLOCKED ALL OF
THEM.
AND NOW WE'RE IN A SIT
WELL WHY DID THEY DO THAT?
WHY DID THEY BLOCK
FREEDOM-LOVING SOLUTIONS TO
HEALTH CARE?
BECAUSE THEIR CROWN JEWEL
SOCIALIZED MEDICINE,
OF SOCIALIZED MEDICINE THAT TOOK
MONTHS TO LEVERAGE AND ARM TWIST
TO GET JUST BARELY ENOUGH VOTES
TO SQUEAK BY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
THOSE ARE THE FACTS.
.
AND THIS BILL PROVIDES SOME
ALLY UGLY THINGS AT HAPPEN
TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
FOR EXAMPLE, HERE'S SOME REAL
NUMBER, MR. SPEAKER.
A H
INDIANAPOLIS TODAY WOULD PAY
ABOUT $ 2,500 FOR A HEALTH
INSURANCE PLAN, UNDER THE BILL,
THE -- WOULD PAY ABOUT $25 FOR
A HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN, UNDER
THE BILL, IT WOULD GO TO $252.
TRIPLES THE PREMIUM FOR THAT
YOUNG MAN.
WHY WOULD WE TRIPLE THE
FOR SOMEBODY WHO HAS LITTLE
RISK OR LIABILITY D
RAISING COSTS ON THE PEOPLE AT
THE HEST LEVEL OF INCOME.
YOU GO TO THE'RE END OF THIS,
TAKE A TUPPLE -- A COUPLE
THAT'S 60 YEARS OLD
MARGINAL HEALTH A LESS HEALTHY
CUP UNTIL INDIANAPOLIS TODAY
WOULD BE PAYING ABOUT $1,169 A
MONTH FOR THE SIMILAR HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN.
THAT ADDS UP PRETTY GOOD OVER A
YEAR.
AND THEIR PREEM UM -- PREMIUM
UNDER THIS BILL WOULD BE
REDUCED ABOUT 11%, DOWN TO $1,043.
MAYBE IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE TO
THAT OLDER CUP.
PRESUMABLY, SOMEONE AT AGE 60
WILL BE MAKING MORE MONEY THAN
THEY DID AT 25, MORE THAN THAT
25-YEAR-OLD WHO SEES THEIR
PREMIUMS TRIPLED SO WE CAN
REDUCE THE 60-YEAR-OLDS'
REDUCED BY 11%.
AND THE FAMILY OF FOUR, MOM AND
DAD AROUND 40 YEARS OLD, PAYING
ABOUT $585 TODAY IN
INDIANAPOLIS, WOULD BE PAYING
$1,171 A YEAR,
MR. SPEAKER.
THESE ARE BAD THINGS FOR
AMERICA AND I'M GOING TO GO
THROUGH A LITTLE BIT OF THIS.
PRINCIPLES THAT
HAVE BEEN LAID OUT BY THE
PRESIDENT.
HE ARGUES THE ECONOMY HAS BEEN
AND REMAINS, HE WOULD ARGUE
THAT IT'S STABLED SOME --
SOMEWHAT, HAS BEEN IN AN -- A
DOWNWARD SPIRAL HE SAID WE
CAN'T FIX THE ECONOMY UNLESS WE
FIX HEALTH CARE.
ANYBODY REMEMBER THAT?
CAN'T FIX THE ECONOMY U
FIRST FIX HEALTH CARE.
WHAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH HEALTH
CARE? TWO THINGS.
ACCORDING TO THE PRESIDENT, WE
SPEND TOO MUCH MONEY, AND WE
HAVE TOO MANY UNINSURED.
NOW, WE SPEND TOO MUCH MONEY IS
THE ALLEGATION BECAUSE IT'S
BEING POINTED OUT THAT A LOT OF
THE TRIL
WORLD SPENDS ABOUT 9357B9% ON
HEALTH CARE, WE'LL SPEND 14.5%,
SOME WOULD SAY 16% OR MORE.
I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE 14.5%
NUMBER.
I'M NOT HERE TO ARGUE THAT WE
DO NOT SPEND TOO MUCH ON HEALTH CARE.
I THINK THAT WE SPEND SOMEWHERE
AROUND $203 BILLION
UNNECESSARILY WHEN IT COMES TO
LAWSUIT ABUSE.
IN AMERICA.
SO THAT'S A NUMBER THAT I WOULD
SUBTRACT A LARGE SHARE OF THAT
FROM THE COST OF OVERALL HEALTH
CARE BEFORE I GET DOWN TO WE'RE
NOT SPENDING TOO MUCH.
BUT WE ALSO MAKE MORE THAN MOST
OF THOSE COUNTRIES SPENDING
9.5%.
WE HAVE THE BEST HEALTH
INSURANCE INDUSTRY IN AMERICA
AND -- THE BEST HEALTH
INSURANCE INDUSTRY IN THE WORLD
AND WE HAVE THE BEST HEALTH
CARE DELIVERY SYSTEM IN THE
WORLD WITH THE BEST INDIVIDUAL
OUTCOMES FOR PRACTICES IN THE
WORLD AND THEY'LL ARGUE THAT
THERE ARE CIVILIZATIONS WHERE
SOCIETIES, COUNTRIES, CULTURES,
WITH POLICIES WHERE PEOPLE LIVE
LONGER THAN THEY DO IN THE
UNITED STATES.
THEY DON'T SEEM TO WANT TO DIG
DOWN AND ASK WHY.
FIRST, JUST A COUPLE OF MONTHS
AGO WE GOT THE ANNOUNCEMENT
THAT THE LIFE EXPECTANCY OF
AMERICANS HAD BEEN READJUSTED
UPWARDS TWO YEARS.
TWO YEARS.
NOW THE NUMBERS BEING QUOTED BY
THE OTHER SIDE, BY
DEMOCRATS HERE THAT ARE PUSHING
SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, THEY DON'T
TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT
ADJUSTMENT IN THE EXTE
THE LIFE EXPECTANCY.
THEY WILL ARGUE THAT WE HAVE -
OUR INFANT MORTALITY RATES ARE
HIGHER THAN A LOT OF THE REST
OF THE INDUSTRIALIZED WORLD.
I WOULD ARGUE THAT WE COUNT THE
BABIES THAT DIE.
WE HAVE A MORE ACCURATE DATA
SYST
THAN MOST, NOT ALL OF THE OTHER
COUNTRY, SO OUR INFANT
MORTALITY IS GOING TO BE HIGHER
THAN IT IS IN COUNTRIES THAT
DON'T RECORD INFANT DEATHS.
THESE ARE NOT MEASURES OF THE
HEALTH CARE SYSTEM UNLESS YOU
DRILL DOWN INTO IT
WITH A REASON AS TO, IF THERE'S
A SOCIETY WHO LIVES LONGER, WHO
ARE THEY AND WHY?
DO THEY ABUSE SUBSTANCES LESS?
WHEN YOU SUBTRACT FATALITIES
FROM CAR ACCIDENTS, SUICIDES
PERHAPS, AND THOSE THAT DIE IN
OTHER KINDS OF ACCIDENTS, ARE
WE A MORE ACTIVE SOCIETY?
ONCE WE MAKE THOSE ADJUSTMENTS,
I DON'T BELIEVE IT HOLDS THAT
AMERICANS DON'T HAVE THE KIND
OF LIFE EXPECTANCY THAT
COMPETES WITH ANY COUNTRY IN
THE WORLD.
I BELIEVE WE DO.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE, AGAIN, THE
BEST HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY
IN THE WORLD AND THE BEST
HEALTHARE DELIVERY SYSTEM IN
THE WORLD BUT THERESIDENT HAS
-- HAS BEEN VERY CRITICAL OF
OUR COSTS AND OUR UNINSURED.
SO ASIDE FROM THE COSTS, THE
OTHER POINT IS, TOO MANY
THE UNINSURED IN AMERICA ARE
ARE IN THIS CHART.
IT COMES OUT TO BE THERE.
-- TO BE THIS.
THEIR NUMBER IS 47 MILLION
THAT NUMBER, IT SOUNDS LIKE A LOT.
AND WE HAVE TO ASK THE
QUESTION, WHO ARE THESE 47 MILLION?
WELL, FIRST OF ALL, IT DOES
INCLUDE 9.7 MILLION WHO QUALIFY
FOR A GOVERNMENT HEALTH
INSURANCE PROGRAM, MOSTLY
MEDICAID, BUT DON'T BOSTONNER
TO SIGN UP.
9.7 MILLION.
SECOND NUMBER OUT THERE, THOSE
THAT QUALIFY FOR AN
EMPLOYER-BASED PLAN, DON'T SIGN
UP THAT NUMBER, I BELIEVE, IS
SOMEWHERE AROUND SIX MILLION.
AND THOSE THAT ALSO ARE -- THEY
MAKE OVER $75,000 A YEAR,
THAT'S ANOTHER LARGE CHUNK,
AROUND SIX MILLION.
THOSE ELIGIBLE FOR GOVERNMENT
PROGRAMS, 9.7 MILLION, IT SAYS
10 MILLION HERE.
THOSE UNDOCUMENTED,
NONCITIZENS, ABOUT SIX MILLION
THERE'S ANOTHER FOUR MILLION
WHO ARE LEGAL IMMIGRANTS BUT
ARE BARRED BY LAW FROM
GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS SO
IMMIGRANTS ARE AROUND 10.1
MILLION.
23 YOU SUBTRACT THESE NUMBER,
ILLEGAL AIL GENERALS AND
IMMIGRANTS, FROM THE 47 MILLION.
THOSE WHO QUALIFY FOR MEDICAID,
THOSE WHO QUALIFY UNDER THEIR
EMPLOYER AND DON'T SIGN UP AND
THOSE WHO MAKE OVER $75,000 A
YEAR AND DON'T BOSTONNER TO BUY
A HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAM, NOW
YOU'RE DOWN TO AMERICANS
WITHOUT INSURANCE WHO DO NOT
HAVE AFFORDABLE OPTIONS, MR. SPEAKER.
THAT'S 12.1 MILLION RIGHT HERE.
I LIKED MY -- I LIKED MY OTHER
CHART BETTER, IT ACTUALLY --
THE NUMBER IS 12.1 MILLION.
IT'S LESS THAN 4% OF THE
OVERALL POPULATION OF THE UNITED STATES.
THIS IS HOW THIS BREAKS
THESE CATEGORIES IN THIS
YELLOW,
SEGMENT OF THE OVERALL 47
MILLION UNINSURED THAT DON'T
HAVE AFFORDABLE OPTIONS.
THIS PIECE RIGHT HERE, MR.
SPEAKER.
I WILL PUT THIS ON TH BROADER
CHART OF THE OVERALL AMERICAN
POPULATION.
THIS IS THE POPULATION OF THE
UNITED STATES AT ABOUT 306
YOU CAN SEE THAT 84% OF
AMERICANS ARE INSURED.
85% OF AMERICANSRE HAPPY WITH
THE POLICY AND PROGRAM THAT
THEY HAVE.
S THE VAST MAJORITY OF
AMERICANS, THESE LITTLE PIE
SLIVERS UP HERE GO DOWN THROUGH
THIS CATEGORY, THE YELLOW AND
BLACK ARE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
AND ALIENS THAT ARE -- MR.
SPEAKER, I'M NOT FOR PROVIDING
HEALTH INSURANCE PROGRAMS FOR
ILLEGALS.
IF THEY BROKE INTO THE UNITED
STATES AND VIOLATED OUR LAWS,
I'M NOT GOING TO SET A CARROT
OUT THERE AND ARE REWARD THEM
FOR BREAKING OUR LAWS AND
GIVING -- GIVING THEM TAXPAYER
MONEY AND HANDING THEM A HEALTH
INSURANCE PROGRAM.
THAT'S WHAT SOME PEOPLE ARE
FOR, L
MIKE HONDA OF CALIFORNIA ARE FOR.
I'M OPPOSED.
I WILL STAND IN OPPOSITION TO
SOCIALIZED MEDICINE AN
PROVIDING COVERAGE FOR ILLEGAL
ALIENS.
THIS ORANGISH PIECE HERE, THESE
ARE INDIVIDUALS EARNING OVER
$75,000 A YEAR.
I THINK THEY CAN FIND ANOTHER
SOLUTION, OTHER THAN A SUBSIDY
FROM TAXPAYERS IN THE MARKET SYSTEM.
AND THE GREEN ARE THOSE ELIGIBLE FOR A GOVERNMENT
PROGRAM, THESE 9.7 MILLION, WHO
DIDN'T BOSTONNER TO SIGN UP FOR
MEDICA.
WE DON'T NEED TO PROVIDE FOR
THEM, IT'S ALREADY THERE.
THEY'RE GOING TO GET THE
COVERAGE WHERE THEY SIGN UP OR
DON'T, MR. SPEAKER.
BUT WE CAN'T SOLVE IT WITH THIS SOLUTION.
THEN, THOSE ELIGIBLE FOR
EMPLOYER-SPONSORED PLANS, SIX
MILLION, THEY DON'T
SIGN UP OR THEY OPT OUT, YOU'RE
DOWN TO THIS RED NUMBER, THIS
IS 4%, THIS RED ONE HERE, THE
ONLY ONE I'M CONCERNED ABOUT,
12.1 MILLION AMERICANS OUT OF
306 MILLIONING LESS THAN 4% OF
OUR POPULATION AND FOR THAT,
FOR THIS RED SLIVER, MR.
SPEAKER, DEMOCRATS HAVE A
MAGICAL SOLUTION FOR TOO MANY
UNINSURED.
SOCIALIZED MEDICINE.
A SINGLE PAYER PLAN.
INCREMENTALLY IMPOSED ON
AMERICA BY SETTING UP A HEALTH
CHOICES ADMINISTRATION CZAR
THAT WRITES NEW RULES AND IN
THE BILL, THE RESULT IS,
READING THE LANGUAGE THAT
CANCELLATION OF EVERY HEALTH
INSURANCE POLICY IN AMERICA,
WHETHER IT BE 2011 OR 2013, AND
THEY ALL HAVE TO GO BACK AND
REBOOT, PUSH THE ARE RESET
BUTTON, PUSH CONTROL ALT DELETE
AND SEE IF THEY CAN WRITE A HEALTH INSURANCE THAT WILL
COMPLY WITH THE NEW REGULATIONS
WRITTEN BY THE NEW HEALTH
CHOICES ADMINISTRATION CZAR.
THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.
1,300 COUNTRY, 100,000 POLICY,
NO OF THEM CAN BE GUARANTEED
UNDER THIS BILL, THAT A SINGLE
POLICY QUALIFIES WITH THE WHIMS
OR REGULATIONS THAT WOULD BE
WRITTEN BY THE CZAR, YET TO
BE APPOINTED, EVEN THOUGH HE'D
BE CONFIRMED BY THE SENATE.
I SEE MY FRIEND FROM TEXAS HAS
ARRIVED, CONGRESSMAN MIKE
BURGESS IS A MEDICAL DOCTOR.
HE'S LIVED THIS.
HE SIES THIS AGENDA AND SEES
HOW THIS ACTUALLY HAPPENS IN
REAL LIFE AND HE'S BEEN A
FIGHTER FOR
I YIELD AS MUCH TIME AS HE MAY
CONSUME TO THE GENTLEMAN FROM
TEXAS AND I THANK HIM FOR
COMING TO THE FLOOR TO HELP.
MR. BURGESS: I THANK THE
GENTLEMAN FOR LEADING THIS
IMPORTANT DISCUSSION TONIGHT.
IT IS CRITICAL THAT PEOPLE
UNDETAND NOT ONLY WHAT IS AT
STAKE BUT WHAT REALISTICALLY IS
POSSIBLE.
AND THE PROGRAMS THAT ARE
TALK ABOUT IN THE BILL THAT
WAS PASSED HERE LATE ON
SATURDAY NIGHT BY THE SLIMMEST
OF MARGIN, NONE OF THOSE
PROGRAMS ARE GOING TO BE
AVAILABLE THE DAY AFTER THE
BILL IS SIGNED.
THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE
AVAILABLE THE DAY AFTER THE DAY
AFTER THE BILL IS SIGNED.
IN FACT, AS THE GENTLEMAN FROM
IOWA POINTS OUT, IT'S GOING TO
TAKE TIME TO CONSTRUCT THIS
MASSIVE NEW GOVERNMENT
ENTITLEMENT PROGRAM SLASH
INSURANCE PROGRAM AND AS A
CONSEQUENCE, IT WILL BE SOME
FOUR YEARS BEFORE THE PROGRAMS
ARE AVAILABLE TO HELP THE
PEOP THAT WERE IN THE 4%
MARGIN OF FOLKS WHO ARE
UNINSURED.
NO THE GENTLEMAN TALKS ABOUT
THE HEALTH BENEFITS CZAR OR
COME CZAR OR WHATEVER WE'RE
GOING TO -- COMEAR OR
WHATEVER WE'RE GOING TO CALL
THAT PERSON, BUT HERE'S WHAT WE
DO KNOW WE PASSED A 2,000 PAGE
BILL, IT GOES TO THE
APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES
AND ALL THE RULE MAKING STARTS.
THINK BACK TO 1996 WHEN THIS
CONGRESS PASSED A BILL CALLED
HIPAAING IT WAS SUPPOSED TO
GIVE US PORT NBLET HEALTH INSUNCE.
THIS WAS A GOOD THING.
PEOPLE NEEDED PORTABILITY IN HEALTH INSURANCE.
BUT A LITTLE PARAGRAPH IN THE
BILL THAT REQUIRED SOME PRIVACY
PROVISIONS BE INCLUDED IN THE
BILL TURNED INTO, WHAT, 10,000
PAGES IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER?
AND EVERY DOCTOR'S OFFICE
ACROSS THE LAND IN EARLY 2000
HAD TO START COMPLYING WITH
THESE, YOU KNOW YOU GO THE
DOCTOR'S OFFICE, THE FIRST
YOU'VE GOT TO DO IS SIGN THREE
FORMS, SIGN THEM EVERY TIME YOU
GO IN, THEY ARE THE HIPAA;
DISCLOSURE FORMS.
CONGRESS, YOUR CONGRESS,
REQUIRED YOUR DOCTOR TO DO
THAT.
OFFICES WERE NEVER THE
PROBLEM WITH DISCLOSURE OF
SENSITIVE INFORMATION IN THE
FIRST PLACE BUT WE ARE THE
RECIPIENTS OF THAT.
OK, NOW WE'VE GOT A 2,000 PAGE BILL.
IT IS TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES AND ALL THE RULES AND
REGULATIONS ARE GOING TO BE
WRITTEN REGARDING THAT
2,000-PAGE BILL.
REMEMBER A SINGLE PARAGRAPH LED
TOHOUSANDS OF FEDERAL REGISTERND THOUSANDS
OF COMMENTS ON THE RULE MAKING.
WE DO HAVE A SECRETARY OF
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
SECRETARY SEBELIUS, PART OF
THAT AGENCY THAT'S GOING TO BE
CHARGED WITH WRITING THIS IS
THE CENTER FOR MEDICARE
MEDICAID SERVICES.
WE DO NOT HAVE AN ADMINISTRATOR
IN THAT DEPARTMENT, THEY HAVE
LACKED AN ADMINISTRATOR SINCE A
WE BEFORE THE INAUGURATION,
WHEN THE PREVIOUS
ADMINISTRATOR, UNDER THINK BUSH
ADMINISTRATION, SAID THANK YOU
VERY MUCH AND LEFT THAT AGENCY
HAS BEEN WITHOUT AN
ADMINISTRATOR SINCE THAT TIME.
WHY IS THAT IMPTANT?
BECAUSE THIS IS THE INDIVIDUAL
WHO IS GOING TO HAVE TO SIFT
THROUGH ALL THE
LANGUAGE IN THIS BILL, MATCH IT
UP WITH THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT
AND THE MEDICARE ACT AND PUT
ALL THESE THI
PUT THE RULES -- WRITE THE
RULES AND REGULATIONS UNDER
WHICH YOUR DOCTOR'S OFFICE WILL
HAVE TO PRACTICE.
WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHO THAT
INDIVIDUAL IS.
IT MAY BE SOMEONE QUITE
COMPETENT, IT MAY BE SOMEONE
WHO IS A POLITICAL APPOINTEE,
THEREIN IS THE PROBLEM.
I DO WANT TO SAY SOMETHING
ABOUT THE GENTLEMAN HAS DONE A
VERY ELOQUENT JOB OF TALKING
ABOUT THE 4% OF THE PEOPLE THAT
WE ACTUALLY LIKELY SET UP TO
HELP WHEN WE -- SET OUT TO HELP
WHEN WE STARTED DOWN THIS ROAD.
I'M SURE THE GENTLEMAN HEARD IN
IT YAY IN THE SUMMER, I HEARD
IT IN NORTH TEXAS IN MY TOWN
HALLS, WE DON'T ANT WANT A
2,000 -- AT THAT TIME IT WAS
ONLY A 1,000-PAGE BILL, I CAN
ONLY IMAGINE WHAT THEY'RE
SAYING NOW, WE DON'T WANT A
1,000-PAGE BILL THAT COULD BE
TAKEN CARE OF WITH REFORM IN
THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY.
THE PROBLEM THAT NEEDED TO BE
CORRECTED WAS THE INDIVIDUAL
WITH A TOUGH MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS,
A PRE-EXISTING CONDITION,
LOSING THEIR JOB, LOSES THEIR
INSURANCE, DOESN'T GET COVERAGE
WITHIN THE APPROPRIATE TIME
FRAME AND THEREFORE IS EXCLUDED
FROM COVERAGE FOR TIME
IMMEMORIAL BECAUSE OF THIS
TOUGH MEDICAL DIAGNOSIS.
MEONE MY AGE LOSE THEIRS JOB,
HAS A HEART ATTACK, THEIR
INSURANCE COVERAGE LAPSES,
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A TOUGH
TIME GETTING BACK.
IN THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WE
HEARD FROM DURING THE SUMMER.
YEAH, WE DIDN'T WANT THE
DEMOCRAT BILL, BUT WE DO NEED
SOME HELP FOR THIS SEGMENT OF
THE POPULATION WHO FALLS INTO
THAT CATEGORY.
THEY WANT INSURANCE, WOULD EVEN
BE WILLING TO PAY A LITTLE MORE
FOR INSURANCE BECAUSE THEY'RE
RECOGNIZE THEIR HUMAN
VULNERABILITY IS NOW ON
DISPLAY, YET THEY CANNOT FIND
IT AT ANY PRICE.
SOME OF THE THINGS WE COULD
HAVE TALKED ABOUT, HAD WE BEEN
REASONABLE ABOUT THIS HAD WE
BEEN TRULY BIPARTISAN ABOUT
THIS, IS WE COULD HAVE TALKED
ABOUT WHAT TYPE OF INSURANCE
REFORM, AND IN FACT THE
PRESIDENT, WHEN HE STOOD HERE
BEFORE THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES IN SEPTEMBER,
ACKNOWLEDGING THAT IT'S GOING
TO BE FOUR YEARS BEFORE ANY OF
THIS STUFF BECOMES AVAILABLE,
HE REFERENCED JOHN MCCAIN'S
DISCUSSION DURING THE CAMPAIGN
A YEAR AGO WHERE PERHAPS
SOMETHING LIKE AN UPPER LIMITS
POLICY OR A HIGH RISK POLICY
WOULD BE POSSIBLY THAT BRIDGE
THAT -- BRIDGE THAT GAP IN
THOSE FEW YEARS UNTIL THEIR NEW POLICIES ARE AVAILABLE.
.
IF WE WORKED ON THAT BRIDGE
POLICY, IF YOU WILL, MAYBETHE
OTHER STUFF WOULD HAVE BEEN
NECESSARY.
SUBSIDIZE THOSE STATES THAT ARE
WILLING TO PARTICIPATE.
THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE
ESTIMATED THAT IT WOULD COST $20
BILLION OVER THE 10-YEAR
BUDGETARY CYCLE TO BEF UP THE
HIGH RISK PLANS TO ACCOMMODATE
THOSE INDIVIDUALS AND EVEN MAKE
IT MORE GENEROUS THAN THAT.
$20 BILLION OVER 10 YEARS IS
LESS THAN $1 TRILLION OVER THAT
10-YEAR INTERVAL.
AND I SUGGEST IF THIS CONGRESS
WERE WILLING TO PAS THE
LIABILITY REFORM, SAVE THAT $54
BILLION THAT THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE SAID WE COULD SAVE
AND PUT ALL OF THAT MONEY TO
HELP THOSE PEOPLE.
WE COULD SOLVE THOSE PROBL
MR. KING: I WOULD LIKE TO POSE A
QUESTION AND ASK YOUR RESPONSE,
THE GENTLEMAN FROM OHIO ALLEGED
THAT THE $54 BILLION THAT WOULD
BE SAVED FROM THE LAWSUIT
REFORM WOULD ONLY BE 1%,
THEREFORE IT IS A SMALL
CONSEQUENCE ANDOT WORTH THE
TROUBLE TO TAKE ON THE TRIAL
LAWYERS FOR THAT 1%.
AND I MADE THAT RESPONSE BUT I
GO TO YOU SINCE THAT IT IS YOUR
EXPERTISE.
MR. BURGESS: THAT IS FAIRLY
NARROW WINDOW.
THEY ARE LOOKING ATMEDICAID,
MEDICARE, SCHIP, SO IN EFFECT,
COULD YOU DOUBLE THAT NUMBER TO
$100 BILLION THAT YOU WOULD SAVE
OVERALL PERSONS WHO WERE
INSURED, COVERED, CASH CUSTOMERS
AND THOSE COVERED BY FEDERAL
PROGRAMS.
IN TEXAS, WE DID PASS
SIGNIFICANT LIABILITY REFORMS IN
2003.
IT HASADE A SUBSTANTIAL
DIFFERENCE IN TEXAS.
I WILL TELL YOU FROM THE STAND
POINT OF A PRACTICING DOCTOR IN
1999, THE COST OF A POLICY FOR
$1 MILLION OF LIABILITY COVERAGE
IN THE DALLAS-FORT WORTH MARKET
WAS AROUND $25,000.
IT HAD MORE THAN DOUBLED TO
$57,000 BY 2002.
IT IS BACK DOWN NOW TO $35,000
IN THE YEARS -- THAT THIS BILL
WAS PASED.
ERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL BENEFIT
IN PREMIUMS BUT THE BIG SAVINGS
COMES IN THE BACKING
PRACTICED.
MR. KING: I THANK THE GENTLEMAN
FROM TEXAS AND IN A MINUTE OR
THAT WE HAVE LEFT.
I HAVE IN MY HAND A LIST OF THE
NEW FEDERAL AGENCIES THAT ARE
CREATED BY THIS BIL.
THIS I
3200.
THAT'S PRETTY SCARY.
THIS IS THE NEW CHART.
AND IN THE MIDLE, THIS IS THE
OLD CHART AND HERE ARE THE NEW
AGENCIES -- MAYBE ACTUALLY NOT
ALL OF THEM.
THE PROGRAM OF ADMINISTRATIVE
SIMPLY FIX.
HEALTH CHOICES ADMINISTRATION.
THIS GUY RIGHT HERE.
THAT IS THE
QUALIFIED HEALTH BENFITS PLAN
OMBUDSMAN THAT TELLS YOU KNOW
ONE CAN DEAL WITH BUREAUCRACY SO
YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOMEONE WRITTEN
INTO THE BILL.
THE HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE
WHERE ALL OF THESE POLICIES AND
INSURANCE COMPANIES WOULD HAVE
TO BE APPROVED.
STATE
EXCHANGE AS WELL.
PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION.
THAT'S THE ONE WE'L SQUEEZE OUT
THE PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES.
THE LIST OF THE MAGNITUDE OF
THIS SOCIALIZED BILL GOES ON
AON.
111 NEW AGENCIES, 230,000 P
ALL TOGETHER AND THE BOTTOM LINE
OF IT IS, MR. SPEAKER, THE
DRAMATIC REDUCTION OF AMERICANS'
CHOICES AND OUR FREEDOM AND
LIBERTY UNDER ASSAULT BY PEOPLE
WHO BELIEVE WE HAVE TO HAVE A
NANNY STATE AND LIVE UNDER
SOCIALIZED MEDICINE AND I WILL
FIGHT THIS ALL THE WAY.
AND I
PEOPLE WILL RISE UP AND KILL
THIS
KILL THE BILL, MR. SPEAKER.
AND I YIELD BACK. GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK.
THE CHAIR LAYS BEFORE THE HOUSE
A COMMUNICATION.
THE CLERK: THE HONORABLE, THE
SPEAKER, HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, MADAM.
PURSUANT TO SECTION 1K
SECTION 4-D OF HOUSE RESOLUTION
5, 11TH CONGRESS, I TRANSMIT TO
YOUR NOTIFICATION THAT PAUL J.
SOLIS, KENDRICK L. PAYNE HAVE
SIGNED AN AGREEMENT TO
CANDIDATE FOR THE CONGRESS FOR
PURPOSES OF A FEDERAL ELECTION
CAMPAIGN ACT OF 1971 UNTIL AT
LEAST THREE YEARS AFTER THEY ARE
NO LONGER A MEMBER OF THE BOARD
OR STAFF OF THE OFFICE OF
CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS.
COPIES OF THE SIGNED AGREEMENTS
SHALL BE RETAINED BY OFFICE OF
THE CLERK AS PART OF THE RECORDS
OF THE HOUSE.
SIGNED SINCERELY, LORRAINE C.
MILLER.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: UNDER
THE SPEAKER'S ANNOUNCED POLICY
OF JANUARY 6, 2009, THE CHAIR
RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN FROM
CALIFORNIA, MR. ROHRABACHER, FOR
60 MINUTES.
MR. ROHRABACHER: I THANK YOU
VERY MUC MR. CHAIRMAN.
PRESIDENT OBAMA WILL SOON MAKE A
DECISION THAT WILL CHART THE
COURSE FOR AMERICA'S INVOLVEMENT
IN AFGHANISTAN FOR YEARS TO
COME.
I PERSONALLY AM OT UPSET THAT
IT HAS TAKEN PRESIDENT OBAMA
THIS LONG TO DETERMINE HIS
RESPONSE TO GENERAL MCHRYSTAL'S
REQUEST FOR AN ADDITIONAL 35,000
U.S. COMBAT TROPS TO BE SENT TO
AFGHANISTAN.
THIS IS A MONUMENTAL DECISION
AND IT COMES WHEN THE RADICAL
ISLAMIC TALIBAN AND AL QAEDA
PERFORM MOVEMENTS SEEM TO BE
GAING MOMENTUM.
OUR TROOPS ARE STRETCHED TO THE
BREAKING POINT AND WHEN OUR
ECONOMY IS FRAYED.
IT COMES WHEN THE DEPTH THAT
AMERICA IS PILING UP IS NOT JUST
ALARMING BUT SUICIDAL.
THIS IS NOT THE TIME FOR
SINESS AS USUAL.
NOR IS IT THE TIME FOR BRASH
DECISION MAK
A DECISION TO SEND U.S. TROOPS
TO AFHANISTAN WILL COST MONEY,
LOTS OF IT, AND IT WILL COST LIVES.
IN THE PAST, POWERFUL NATIONS
WERE HUMBLED IN THE RUGGED
TERRAIN OF THAT DECEMBER OL ATE
COUNTRY, YES A DESOLATE COUNTRY,
DOTTED BY THOUSANDS OF SMALL
VILLAGES, POPULATED BY TRIBAL
PEOPLE
FEROCIOUS THAT THEY HAVE NEVER
BEEN CONQUERED.
THROUGHOUT HISTORY, ATTEMPTS TO
CONQUER AFGHANISTAN HAS MET WITH
BLOODY FAILURE.
WAR THERE IS NOT DEFEATING AN ENEMY.
IT IS CONQUERING A PEOPLE AND
THESE PEOPLE HAVE NEVER BEEN
CONQUERED.
BRITISH WRITER KIPLING ONCE
WROTE, WHEN YOU LIE WOUNDED ON
THE AFGHAN PLAIN AND THE WOMEN
ARE COMING TO CUT THE REMAINS,
ROLL TO YOUR RIGHT AND BLOW OUT
YOUR BRAINS AND GO TO YOUR GOD
LIKE A SOLDIER.
THE BRITISH ARMY DOMINATED VAST
SPANSES OF INDIA FOR TWO
CENTURIES BUT WAS NEVER ABLE TO
SUBDUE THE AFGHANS.
THOUSANDS OF BRITISH TROOPS LOST
THEIR LIVES TRYING TO DO JUST
THAT.
IN 1842, A BRITISH FORCE OF
16,000 WITHDREW FROM THEIR
FORTRESS IN KABUL.
THAT FORCE WAS THEN BESET BY
AFGHAN TRIBESMEN WHO
PIECES.
ONLY ONE MEMBER OF THE ORIGINAL
CONTINGENT OF 16,000 MADE IT TO
THE CITY.
THAT ONE PERSON WHO SURVIVED WAS
THE SURGEON DR. BRO YMP DEN.
IT WAS THOUGHT PERHAPS HE WAS
PERMITTED TO SURVIVE.
RUSSIA HAS HAD ITS INVOLVEMENT
IN THE HOSTILE AFGHAN COUNTRYSIDE.
IT WAS ONE OF THE SOVIET UNION'S
MOST TELLING CHAPTERS AND IT WAS
ONE OF THEIR LAST CHAPTERS.
AFTER AMERICA'S INGLORIOUS
CONCLUSION OF ITS MILITARY
OPERATIONS IN VIETNAM.
, OUR SOVIET ADVERSARY WAS
EMBOLDENED.
A POWER VACUUM WAS CREATED THAT
THE SOVIETS HOPED TO FILL.
THEY WERE ENGAGED IN A
POST-VIETNAM WAR OFFENSIVE
THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.
WHEN CHA AND VOLATILITY
ERUPTED IN AFGHANISTAN AS A
RESULT OF A BLOOD RIFT BETWEEN
TWO AFGHAN COMMUNIST FACTIONS,
SOVIET LEADERS SENT IN THE RED ARMY.
THEY DID THAT TO UNIFY THE
COMMUNIST FACTIONS AND PACIFY
THE COUNTRYSIDE IN AFGHANISTAN
WHICH WAS ALREADY HOSTILE TO THE
IDEOLOGY AND HOSTILE TO FOREIGN
TROOPS.
PERHAPS AS A PAYBACK FOR THE
MASSIVE SOVIET AID PROVIDED TO
THE NORTH DURING OUR CONFLICT IN
VIETNAM OR PERHAPS JUST AS A
MEANS OF WEAKENING THE SOVIET
GLOBAL MILITARY POWER DURING
RONALD REAGAN'S ADMINISTRATION,
OUR GOVERNMENT PROVIDED WEAPONS
AND OTHER SUPPORT FOR THE AFGHAN
INSURGENT FORCES WHO WERE
BATTLING SOVIET OCCUPATION TROOPS.
AS COMPARED WITH OTHER 20TH
CENTURY PRESIDENTS, REAGAN
RARELY DEPENDED ON A POLICY OF
DEPLOYING U.S. TROOPS TO SOLVE
PROBLEMS AND TO COMBAT ENEMIES.
I KNOW THAT GOES AGAINST WHAT A
LOT OF PEOPLE THINK ABOUT RONALD
REAGAN.
U.S. FORCES UNDER RONALD REAGAN,
YES, WERE SENT IN TO GRENADA
WHICH WAS IN THE MIDST OF A
MURDEROUS RAMPAGE.
IT WAS A LIMITED OPERATION, BUT
IT WAS SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE IT
PROVED THAT AMERICA WAS WILLING
TO USE ITS FORCE AFTER SUFFERING
A DEMORA
KNOWN AS THE VIETNAM SYNDROME.
ANOTHER DEPLOYMENT PRESIDENT
REAGAN AGREED TO MAKE WAS
SENDING MA EVENS INTO LEBANON,
WHICH RESULTED INTO A
CATASTROPHIC ATTACK OUR MARINES
WHICH LEFT 290 OF THEM
MANY OTHERS SEVERELY INJURED.
AFTER THAT, REAGAN WAS RELUCTANT
TO DEPLOY OUR
AND DURING HIS ADMINISTRATION,
IF YOU LOOK AT THE RECORDS, HE
DEPLOYED TROOPS INTO COMBAT MANY
FEWER TIMES THAN MOST OTHER
PRESIDENTS DURING THE ST
YET, HE IS PORTRAYED AS A COLD
WAR I DON'T REMEMBER AND IS
BRANDED AND WAS WRAND BRANDED
THEN AS A WAR MONGER.
HE DEPLOYED OUR TROOPS FEWER
TIMES THAN MOST AMERICAN
PRESIDENTS.
YES, RONALD REAGAN, MORE THAN
ANY OTHER LEADER, WAS ONE WHO WE
SHOULD BASICALLY PRAISE FOR THE
DEFEAT OF SOVIET COMUNISM.
THAT ENEMY THREATENED OUR
SECURITY, THE FREEDOM OF OUR
PEOPLE AND
THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, YET HE DID
NOT SEND OUR TROOPS INTO HOSTILE
ACTION AFTER THE BEIRUT DID HE
BACKLE MURDERED AND
THE DEATH OF OUR MARINES.
IF HE DIDN'T SEND OUR TROOPS IN
TO VARIOUS PLACES, HOW WAS OR
COUNTRY SO WELL DEFENDED DURING
THAT TIME AND HOW WAS THE EVIL
POWER OF SOVIET COMMUNISM
DEFEATED?
WELL, THE ANSWER IS, IT IS WHAT
IS CALLED THE REAGAN DOCTRINE.
THIS STRATEGY WAS BA
CONCEPT OF HELPING OTHERS FIGHT
THEIR BATTLES WHEN THEIR FOE WAS
OUR
RATHER THAN SENDING U.S. TROOPS
INTO CENTRAL AMERICA, FOR
EXAMPLE, WHEN THE SOVIETS ARMED
-- IN FACT, THE STOOGES WERE IN
THE PROCESS OF ESTABLISHING A
MARXIST DICTATORSHIP IN
NICARAUGUA AND MILITARY
EQUIPMENT TO BACK UP THAT
REGIME, REAGAN DIDN'T SEND IN
TROOPS.
HE ARMED THOSE PEOPLE WHO WERE
RESISTING THE REGIME, THE
SO-CALLED CONTRAS.
IN AFRICA, AMERICA HELPED ARM A
GROUP AS THEY FOUGHT A
SOVIET-BACKED REGIME IN ANGOLA
AND NEITHER OF THESE TWO GROUPS
WERE PERFECT.
THEY HAD MANY IMPERFECTIONS AND
FLAWED ALLIES B
FIGHTING FOR THEIR OWN COUNTRY
AND FIGHTING THEIR OWN
COUNTRYMEN.
WE DID NOT RELY ON SENDING THE
U.S. TROOPS.
WE SUPPORTED THOSE LOCAL PEOPLE
WHO WERE FIGHTING THEIR
ADVERSARY AS LONG AS THEIR
ADVERSARY WAS OUR ADVERSARY AS
WELL.
WE ARMED AND WE SUPPORTED THE
MUJAHADEEN IN AFGHANISTAN WHO
DIRECTLY TOOK ON THE MILITARY
MIGHT OF THE SOVIET UNION.
AGAIN, MANY OF THE MUJAHADEEN
WERE CONSISTENT WITH OUR OUTLOOK
AND VIEWS AND RESPECT OF FREEDOM
AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, MANY OF
THEM WERE, BY THE WAY, VERY,
VERY SUPPORTIVE OF TREATING
PEOPLE DECENTLY AND WERE NOT
RADICAL USLIMS IN THAT REGARD,
BUT THEY WERE FLAWED PEOPLE WHO
WE SUPPORT TODD FIGHT THE SOVIET
ION.
THAT'S HOW THE SOVIET UNION WAS
BROUGHT DOWN.
NOT BY SENDING IN U.S. TROOPS,
OR -- BUT BY HELPING THOSE
WERE TRYING TO DEFEAT OUR
ENEMY.
DURING THOSE YEAR, I WORKED IN
THE WHITE HOUSE AS A SENIOR
SPEECH WRITER AND SPECIAL
ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT REAGAN.
I WORKED FOR THE SMALL CADRE OF
PEOPLE WHO MADE THE REAGAN
DOCTRINE REAL.
THE SPEECH WRITING STAFF IS
CREDITED WITH MAKING THE
DOCTRINE REAL.
THOSE PEOPLE WHO TURNED IT INTO
POLICY, ACTUAL STRATEGIES BEING
PUT IN PLACE AND PUT TO USE IN
THE COLD WAR, WERE A VERY SMALL
GROUP OF PATRIOTS.
CONSTANTIN MENGES, WHO CAME
FROM THE C.I.A. AND THEN INTO
THE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL.
BILL CASEY OF THE C.I.A.
COLONEL OLIVER NORTH.
DR. PAULA DOBROVSKY.
VINCE CAPISTRANO.
KEN DIGRAFFNEY.
ALL THOSE ON THE ADMINISTRATION
TEAM WHO PLA
IN DEFEATING SOVIET COMMUNISM,
NOT BY ORCHESTRATING MOVES TO
SEND MORE TROOPS HERE OR MORE
U.S. TROOPS HERE, BUT INSTEAD
OTRY TO SUPPORT THOSE PEOPLE
THROUGHOUT THE WORLD WHO WERE
FIGHTING AGAINST SOVIET TYRANNY
THEMSELVES.
AND OF
AND WE HAD AN INITIATION OF
SUCH IDEAS AND CONCEPTS BY AND
SUPPORT OF THE POLICY BY DR.
JACK WHEELER, WHO IS ALSO
PERSON WHO WORKED WITH US IN
TH WAS
INDEPENDENT AND WENT INTO THESE
VARIOUS PLACES AROUND THE WORLD
AND MET THE LEADERS OF VARIOUS
ANTI-SOVIET INSURGENCIES
THROUGHOUT THE WORLD AND
REPORTED DIRECTLY BACK US TO
IN THE WHITE HOUSE AS TO WHAT
WAS GOING ON IN THOSE
INSURGENCIES AND YES, OF COURSE
WE NEED ALSO TO THANK MEMBERS
OF CONGRESS WHOP SUPPORTIVE OF
THOSE EFFORTS, LET US NOTE THAT
RONALD REAGAN, IT'S OFTEN SAID,
IT WAS BIPARTISANSHIP THAT
ENDED THE COLD WAR, BUT I
REMEMBER VERY CLEARLY RONALD
REAGAN BEING CALLED A WARMONGER.
I REMEMBER VERY CLEARLY THOSE
EFFORTS TO DEFEAT THE EXPANSION
OF SOVIET POWER IN CENTRAL
AMERICA, BEING UNDERMINED
DIRECTLY BY PEOPLE IN THIS
CONGRESS WHO
RONALD REAGAN AS THE PROBLEM
RATHER THAN COMMUNIST TYRANNY
AS THE PROBLEM.
BUT THERE WERE OTHER PEOPLE ON
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AISLE AND
ON THE REPUBLICAN SIDE OF THE
AISLE, WHO WERE ACTIVE IN
SUPPORT OF THE REAGAN DOCTRINE,
HELPING FREEDOM
FIGHTERS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD
INSTEAD OF SENDING U.S. TROOPS.
THE MOST PROMINENT NAME
NOWADDAIS IS CHARLIE WILSON.
YES, CHARLIE WILSON, AS AN
PLOPETOR WHO HELPED GET MONEY
FOR THE AFGHAN FREEDOM
FIGHTERS,
ROLE AS H MOVIE SUGGESTS.
BUT HE WAS NOT THE ONLY ONE.
CHARLIE DESERVES CREDIT
DO THOSE OTHER PEOPLE, THE ONES
I JUST MENTIONED AND OTHERS,
PEOPLE WHO MADE SURE THAT THOSE
PEOPLE WHO ARE FIGHTING FOR
FREEDOM IN VARIOUS COUNTRIES
DID GET THOSE SUPPLIES AND THAT
THE REAGAN DOCTRINE, THE
CONCEPT WAS IMPLEMENTED.
WE MADE SURE THAT THE RUSSIANS
LEARNED IN VIETNAM.
THE INTRODUCTION OF U.S. COMBAT
TROOPS IN VIETNAM DID NOT WORK?
AND IT IS -- IT WA
WAS THAT WAR THAT TREMENDOUSLY
WEAKENED US BUT IT WAS THE
INTRODUCTION OF COMBAT TROOPS,
I BELIEVE, IN THE THIS -- INTO
VIETNAM THAT WEAKENED US
BECAUSE THE DYNAMICS WERE
CHANGE
HAVING MASSIVE TROOPS DEPLOYED
IN A TOTALLY FOREIGN CULTURE
DID NOT WORK FOR OUR SIDE IN
AFGHANISTAN.
AND HERE WE HAD OU TROOPS IN A
TOTALLY FOREIGN LAND ON THE
OTHER SIDE OF THE PLANET AND B
INTRODUCING THOSE TROOPS,
RATHER THAN FOCUSING PERHAPS ON
HELPING THE PEOPLE IN VIETNAM
TO FIGHT THEIR BATTLE, WE SET
UP A DIE NAM TAKE WORKED ITSELF
OUT, YES, AND AS IT WORKED
ITSELF OUT, IT DEFEATED OUR
EFFORTS AND LEFT THE UNITED
STATES WITH 50,000 DEAD AND A
WORLD HUMILIATION AND A COUNTRY
IN RETREAT.
I SPENT TIME IN VIETNAM IN
1967.
ALTHOUGH I WAS NOT IN THE
MILITARY.
PART OF MY EXPERIENCE WAS IN
THE CENTRAL HIGHLANDS, WHERE I
HOOKED UP WITH A SPECIAL FORCES
UNIT OPERATING OUT OF AN OLD
FRENCH FORT NEAR HE THE
VIETNAMESE CITY BY THE NAME OF
PLKU.
ITAS THERE I FIRST SAW A
STRATEGY THAT WORKED.
OUR SPECIAL FORCES TEAMS HAD
TURNED THE MOUNTAIN YARDS,
VIETNAM'S INDIGENOUS MOUNTAIN
PEOPLE, INTO AN AMERICAN ALLY
IN THIS BLOODY, ELONGATED
CONFLICT.
YES, OUR MILITARY FORCES IN
VIETNAM WERE NEVER DEFEATED.
OUR MILITARY
THEY WERE NEVER DEFEATED ON THE
BATTLEFIELD, NOT IN ONE MAJOR
BATTLE, BUT WE LOST THE WAR.
THE STRATEGYWAS WRONG.
IN THE CENTRAL HIGHLANDS, THE
MOUNTAIN YARDS WERE WITH US.
IN FACT, I FELT VERY SECURE AND
I KNEW THEY WOULD BE -- WOULD
PUT A HIGH PRIORITY ON
PROTECTING ME WHILE I WAS WITH
THEM, EVEN THOUGH I WAS AN
AMERICAN.
YES, IN THE HIGHLANDS, THE
MOUNTAIN YARDS WITH US, THOSE
WERE THE PEOPLE THAT OCCUPIED
THE HIGHLANDS IN VIETNAM AND
HAD THE WAR BEEN DECIDED THERE,
WITH THOSE PEOPLE YOU ARE
ENEMIES WOULD HAVE BEEN
DEFEATED INSTEAD OF AN AMERICAN DEFEAT.
IN AFGHANISTAN, AMERICA GAVE
THE PEOPLE OF AFGHANISTAN, THE
WEAPONS THEY NEEDED TO FIGHT
THE SOVIET ARMY AND WHEN WE
PROVIDED THEM STINGER MISSILE,
WE GAVE THEM THE MEANS NOT JUST
TO FIGHT BUT TO WIN.
BY THE WAY, WE ALSO PROMISED TO
HELP REBUILD THEIR TORN COUNTRY
, AS WE ENCOURAGED THEM TO
FIGHT, BLEED, AND SACRIFICE IN
ORDER TO DEFEAT THE SOVIET
ARMY.
THE AFGHANS PAID A MONSTROUS
PRICE FOR THEIR VICTORY, A
MILLION
WOUNDED, DEVASTATION THROUGHOUT
THEIR SOCIETY.
STOOD UP AND DEFEATED OUR
MUTUAL ENEMY.
I WAS BLESSED WITH NOT JUST
MEETING THE
ANTI-SOVIET MUJAHIDEEN WHEN
THEY VISITED WASHINGTON BACK IN
THE 1980'S, I ACTUALLY WENT
INTO AFGHANISTAN WITH A
MUJAHIDEEN COMBAT UNIT AND
PARTICIPATED FOR A SHORT TIME
IN THE BATTLE OF JALABAD, THE
LAST MAJOR BAT UNTIL WHICH
SOVIET TROOPS WERE PRESENT.
I DO -- I DO NOT RECOUNT THESE
MOMES IN HISTORY TO BRING
PRAISE UPON MYSELF, BUT INSTEAD
TO LEND PERSONAL AUTHORITY TO
THE BATTLES WE ENDURED THEM AND
TO THE ISSUES THAT CONFRONT US
TODAY.
THAT WEEK-LONG EXPOSURE TO THAT
AFGHAN BATTLE GAVE ME A LASTING
ADMIRATION FOR THESE
UNCONQUERED PEOPLE.
IT WAS THE COURAGE OF THE
AFGHAN PEOPLE MORE THAN ANY
OTHERS THAT BROKE THE WILL OF
THE COMMUNIST LEADERSHIP IN
MOSCOW AND YES, BROUGHT ABOUT
THE COLLAPSE OF THE SOVIET
COMMUNIST THREAT THAT HAD
LOOMED OVER OUR HEADS FOR
DECADES.
AND WHEN SOVIET TROOPS MOVED
OUT OF AFGHANISTAN, INSTEAD OF
FULFILLING OUR PROMISE TO HELP
REBUILD THEIR WAR-TORN LAND, WE
LEFT THOSE BRAVE PEOPLE TO
SLEEP, WOUNDED, IN THE RUBBLE.
WE DID NOT EVEN PROVIDE THEM
WITH THE RESOURCES THEY NEED
TO CLEAR THEIR
MINES THAT WE HAD GIVEN THEM
DURING THEIR WAR AGAINST THE
SOVIET ARMY.
THUS, WE LEFT THEM WITH A
COUNTRY IN WHICH, FOR A DECADE,
THE LEGS WERE BLOWN OFF THEIR
CHILDREN AS THEY WALKED THROUGH
THE COUNTRYSIDE.
WE DN'T EVEN PROVIDE THEM
HELP TO CLEAR THE MINES AT THAT
TIME.
NOW THAT DECISION TO WALK AWAY
FROM AFGHANISTAN WAS THE
DECISION NOT OF RONALD REAGAN,
BUT OF PRESIDENT GEORGE HERBERT
WALKER BUSH.
AND OF COURSE AS WE WALKED
AWAY, THE ANTI-SOVIET
MUJAHIDEEN BROKE INTO WARRING FACTIONS.
THE CHAOS AND MISERY WAS
PREDICTABLE.
BUT OF COURSE, WE JUST WALKED
AWAY.
WE LET THEM JUST GO DOWN INTO
THEEPTHS OF MISERY AND OF
CONFLICT AND OF SELF-MUTILATION
OF THAT SOCIETY.
EVENTUALLY, DURING THE CLINTON
YEARS, OUR GOVERNMENT MADE A
SECRET PACT WITH SAUDI ARAB
AND PAKISTAN TO END THE CHAOS
IN AFGHANISTAN BY INTRODUCING A
NEW FORCE CALLED THE TALIBAN.
NOW I HAD SEEN THE STRATEGIES
BEFORE OF ASSISTING FORCES IN
AFGHANISTAN WHO WERE RADIC ISLAMISTS.
I IN FACT SPENT CONSIDERABLE
TIME IN THE WHITE HOUSE
POUNDING ON PEOPLE'S DESKS
SAYING, WHY ARE WE PROVIDING
MILITARY SUPPORT FOR PEOPLE
LIKE THESE WHO ARE RADICAL
ISLAMISTS WHO WERE FIGHTING
AGAINST THE
KILLING OTHER ELEMENTS WITHIN
THE ANTI-SOVIET MUJAHIDEEN,
KILLING THEM BECSE THEY WERE
NOT AS RADICAL IN THEIR ISLAMIC
TRADITION?
NO, THAT BACKFIRED ON US THEN
ANIN FACT DURING THE GULF
WAR, THE FIRST GULF WAR, IT'S
SIGNIFICANT THAT THE MUJAHIDEEN
RADICALS THAT WE HAD SUPPORTED
SIDED WITH SADDAM HUSSEIN.
THIS AFTER WE HAD PROVIDED HIM
A MOUNTAIN OF WEAPONS.
I ARGUED AGAINST THIS STUPID
STRATEGY BASED ON EMPOWERING
RELIGIOUS FANATICS.
IT WAS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED,
ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE WAS A
DERATE ALTERNATIVE DURING THE
WAR WITH THE SOVIETS.
WE HAD GROUPS OF MUJAHIDEEN
FIGHTERS WHO WERE NOT THE
RADICAL ISLAMISTS THAT
EVENTUALLY BECAME THE TALIBAN
WHICH IS A MISTAKE THE PEOPLE
-- THAT MANY PEOPLE MAKE, THEY
THINK THE MUJAHIDEEN WERE THE
TALIBAN, BUT THE TALIBAN CAME
LATER.
I COULD SEE THAT EMPOWERING
RELIGIOUS FANATICS WAS NOT THE
RIGHT WAY TO GO.
AFTER THE SOVIETS HAD BEEN
DRIVEN OUT, THERE WAS A
MODERATE ALTERNATIVE.
THE MODERATE ALTERNATIVE WAS
KING SHAU.
HE WAS AN COMPILED KING, RIGHT
BEFORE THE SOVIETS TOOK OVER.
THE FACT IS, HE HAD RULED THAT
COUNTRY FOR 40 YEARS.
HE WAS THE ONLY LEADER WHO EVER
GAVE AFGHANISTAN A TIME OF
TRANQUILITY AND PROGRESS AND HE
DID THAT BY NOT TRYING TO IMPOSE
HIS RULE ON THE REST OF THE
PEOPLE OF AFGHANISTAN.
BUT INSTEAD RULED AS A MONARCH,
AS A SYMBOL,S A FATHER OF HIS COUNTRY.
WELL, HE WAS AVAILABLE.
HE WAS LIVING IN C
ROME.
I ARGUED THAT CASE THAT HE
SHOULD BE THE ONE THAT BROUGHT
BACK TO UNIFY THE COUNTRY, NOT
SOME R
THE TALIBAN.
BUT THE SAUDIS AND THE
PAKISTANIS WERE INSISTENT AND
THEY THOUGHT THEY COULD CONTROL
THE TALIBAN AND TH WOULD USE
THE TALIBAN, CONTROL OF THE
TALIBAN, TO CONTROL AFGHANISTAN.
AND OF COURSE AMERICA JUST WENT
ALONG WITH IT.
PRESIDENT CLINTON AND HIS
ADMINISTRATION SIGNED ONTO THAT
DEAL.
IT WAS AN EASY WAY OUT.
THE SAUDIS WERE GOING TO PROVIDE
SO MUCH MONEY AND ASSISTANCE AND
THE PAKISTANIS WERE THERE AND OF
COURSE THEN PEOPLE DIDN'T
REALIZE THAT THE PAKISTANI
MILITARY AND THE I.S.I., WHO WE
HAVE SINCE PROVEN WERE ACTUALLY
RADICAL ISLAMISTS THEMSELVES,
THEY WERE THE ALLIES OF THE
WORST ANTI-AMERICAN RADICALS IN
THAT REGION.
SO, IN REALITY AMERICA IN THE
MID 1990'S WAS COVERT WILLLY
SUPPORTING THE TALIBAN --
COVERTLY SUPPORTING THE TALIBAN.
WE COVERTLY SUPPORTED ITS
CREATION AND WE MADE SURE THAT
OUR AID WAS
CHANNELED INTO THOSE AREAS THAT
SUPPORTED THE TALIBAN BUT WE
SHORT CHANGED ALL THE OTHER
NONRADICAL ISLAMISTS WHO WERE
THERE AND DIDN'T GET THAT SAME
LEVEL OF AID.
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, FOR THE
PEOPLE OF AF PEOPLE OF AFGHANISTAN BELIEVED
THEN AS THEY DO NOW THAT THE
UNITED STATES HELPED CREATE AND
WAS BEHIND THE TALIBAN.
AND IF THEY BELIEVE IT AND
THEY'RE LIVING WITH IT, THE
AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW THIS
AS WELL.
WELL, THE FACT THAT THE CLINTON
ADMINISTRATION WAS COVERTLY
SUPPORTING THE TALIBAN DID NOT
STOP A NUMBER OF US FROM DOING
SOMETHING ELSE, FROM TRYING TO
CREATE ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE.
BEN GILLMAN, CHAIRMAN OF THE
HOUSE FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE,
ALONG WITH A SMALL TEAM OF
ACTIVISTS AND I AM VERY PROUD TO
HAVE BEEN ONE OF THEM, STRUGGLED
TO -- STRUGGLED TO CHANGE U.S.
POLICY AND WEPT OUT TO SUPPORT
THOSE WHO OPPOSED THE -- WENT
OUT TO SUPPORT THOSE WHO OPPOSED
THE TALIBAN OF THE I WAS IN AND
OUT OF -- TALIBAN.
I WAS IN PERSONALLY.
WE WERE WORKING TO BUILD AN
ANTITALIBAN COALITION BY UNITING
ETHNIC AND TRIBAL LEADERS,
ESPECIALLY
TUNE AREAS OF AFGHANISTAN.
WE ALSO WORKED WITH PUSH TONS
WHO WERE ANTI-TALIBAN.
LEADERS LIKE ABDUL HAWK WHO WAS
A TERRIFIC LEADER AND ONE OF THE
GREAT LEADERS IN THE MUJAHEDDIN
EFFORT TO DEFEAT THE SOVIET ARMY
DURING THEIR OCCUPATION.
HE WAS A PUSHTUN LEADER THAT WE
WERE WORKING WITH AND THERE WAS
KING SHAW WHO WAS ALSO A
PUSHTUN.
WE WERE TRYING AT THE VERY LEAST
TO GET THOSE IN THE NORTHERN
PART OF THE COUNTRY AND THOSE
ETHNIC GROUPS OTHER THAN PUSHTUNS.
BECAUSE IN AFGHANISTAN, YES, NOT
ALL PUSHTUNS ARE TALIBAN BUT
ALMOST ALL TALIBAN ARE PUSHTUNS.
DURING THAT TIME, DURING THE
1990'S WHEN WE WERE WORKING
TRYING TO CREATE THAT COALITION,
I MET WITH GENERAL DOSE TIN,
COMMANDER MASSOUD AND MANY
OTHERS, OUR TEAM BROUGHT
TOGETHER ALL OF THE LEADERS OF
THE ETHNIC GROUPS OF THE AFGHAN
ETHNIC GROUPS AND THE
SIGNIFICANT TRIBES.
WE BROUGHT THEM TOGETHER IN
FRANKFORT, IN BALANCE AM IN
1997, IN ISTANBUL IN 1998 AND
THEN IN DECEMBER, 2000, AND AND
CHAIRMAN GILLMAN BROUGHT THE KEY
AFGHANISTAN PLAYERS RIGHT HERE
TO WASHINGTON, D.C., TO OUR
FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE ROOM
IN THE RAYBURN ROOM, IN THE
RAYBURN BUILDING.
AS A RESULT OF THAT MEETING,
ORGANIZED BY CHAIRMAN GILLMAN
AND MYSELF, WHAT RESULTED FROM
THAT MEETING WAS A PHONE CALL
MADE DURING THAT MEETING FROM
THE PARTICIPANTS HERE WHO WERE ANTI-TALIBAN PEOPLE WHO WE HAD
BROUGHT HERE, THAT TELEPHONE
CALL WAS MADE TO KING SHAW WHO
WAS THEN L IN COMPILE IN ROME.
ON THAT -- -- THAT -- EXILE IN
ROME.
DURING THAT PHONE CA, AN
AGREEMENT WAS REACHED THAT THE
KING WOULD RETURN TO AFGHANISTAN
INTO MASSOUD'S TERRITORY AND
LEAD A GATHERING OF LEADERS OF
AFGHANISTAN IN JULY OF
WHEN THAT AGREEMENT
FRUIT, WHEN THAT MEETING DID NOT
OCCUR, BEN GILLMAN AND I
DISCUSSED COMMITTEE STAFF IN
LATE AUGUST AND EARLY SEPTEMBER
OF 2001 TO ROME AND TO PAKISTAN
TO FIND OUT WHY THAT HAD FAILED
MATERIALIZE.
SO WHATEVER THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION WAS DOING,
WHATEVER THE TILT TO THE
TALIBAN, THERE WERE OTHERS OF US
TRYING TO DO WHAT WAS RIGHT AND,
YES, ALL OF THAT ACTIVITY PAID
OFF.
EVENTUALLY AFTER 9/11 THE AFGHAN
TRIBAL AND ETHNIC LEADERS ON OUR
TEAM AND BASICALLY THOSE PEOPLE
THAT WE HAD BEEN ENCOURAGING TO
GET TOGETHER AND FORM A
COALITION, THAT COALITION
EMERGED AFTER 9/11 AS THE
NORTHERN ALLIANCE.
MOST IMPORTANT FOR AMERICANS TO
UNDERSTAND NOW, IT WAS THE
NORTHERN ALLIANCE, AFGHANS
THEMSELVES, NOT U.S. COMBAT
TROOPS, THAT DROVE THE TALIBAN
OUT OF AFGHANISTAN AFTER 9/11.
MANY PEOPLE NOW ARE VERY LOOSE
IN THEIR WORDS WHEN THEY DISCUSS
HOW THE
DRIVEN OUT AFTER 9/11.
WHEN WE DROVE THEM OUT.
YOU CAN HEAR THAT OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
WELL, IT WAS A MAGNIFICENT
VICTORY.
BUT AMERICA ONLY HAD 200 TROOPS
ON THE GROUND.
SPECIAL FORCES.
WHEN THE TALIBAN WERE DRIVEN OUT
OF AFGHANISTAN.
SO, WHEN YOU HEAR PEOPLE SAY,
OH, WE DIDN'T COME IN WITH
ENOUGH BOOTS ON THE GROUND, WE
ONLY HAD 200 BOOTS ON THE
GROUND, IN
FACT THOSE 200 BOOTS GAVE US A
TREMENDOUS VICTORY.
AND IT ALSO GAVE US A TREMENDOUS
OPPORTUNITY TO REBUILD THAT
NATION AND TO DEMONSTRATE THE
BENEFIT OF BEING AMERICA'S
FRIEND.
IT GAVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO
MA UP FOR BREAKING OUR WORD
BEFORE -- AFTER THAT WAR WITH
THE SOVIETS AND TO REGAIN THE
TRUST AND ADMIRATION OF MODERATE
MUSLIMS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.
WE HAD THAT CHANCE.
AFGHANISTAN, WHICH BY THE WAY IS
ABOUT THE SAME SIZE OF IRAQ, WE
HAD DRIVEN OUT A FOREST OF TENS
OF THOUSANDS OF -- FORCE OF TENS
OF THOUSANDS OF TALIBAN SOLDIERS
AND THEIR AL QAEDA ALLIES.
NOT BY U.S. TROOPS, ONLY 200
U.S. TROOPS WERE THERE, BUT
INSTEAD BY PROVIDING AIR SUPPORT
AND SUPPLIES AND COMMUNICATIONS
TO THOSE PEOPLE IN AFGHANISTAN
WHO WERING AGAINST THE RADICAL
ISLAMIC GANGSTERS WHO HAD OPPRESSED THEM.
WELL, AFTER THE TALIBAN WAS
DEFEATED, INSTEAD OF FOCUSI
AFGHANISTAN, INSTEAD OF KEEPING
OUR PROMISE, GOING BACK TO KEEP
OUR RD WHICH WE'D GIVEN SO
LONG AGO, AND I MIGHT SAY, WE
RENEWED THAT PROMISE WHEN WE
ASKED THEM TO DRIVE OUT THE
TALIBAN, INSTEAD PRESIDENT BUSH
RUSHED THE UNITED STATES INTO AN
INVASION ATTACK OF IRAQ.
THE BATTLE FOR IRAQ, HOWEVER,
WAS FOUGHT BY U.S. COMBAT
TROOPS, A TOTALLY DIFFERENT
STRATEGY FROM WHAT HAD WORKED IN
AFGHANISTAN.
AND
IMPLEMENTED A SIMILAR
STRATEGY IN IRAQ.
BY ARMING THE KURDS AND THE
SHI'ITES, BY MAKING DEALS AND
CUTTING DEALS WITH SHY EAT
LEADERS, BY -- SHI'ITE LEADERS,
BY REACHING OUT TO DIFFERENT
PEOPLE IN THEIR MILITARY AND
GOVERNMENT.
BUT INSTEAD, NO, WE SENT IN
LARGE NUMBERS OF U.S. TROOPS IN
COMBAT UNITS.
ONLY WHEN W
BACK AND USED OUR FINANCIAL
RESOURCES TO BUY THE GOODWILL OF
THE PEOPLE IN IRAQ DID THE IRAQ
WAR TURN IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
WE HAVE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THE
SURGE AND I VOTED FOR THE SURGE
D TO BE AS SUPPORTIVE
AS I COULD,
IN IRAQ WOULD HAVE BEEN A
HORRIBLE, DEMORAL IDSING EVENT
-- DEMORAL IDSING EVENT FOR THE
PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES --
MORALIZING EVENT FOR THE
PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES.
I TRIED TO BE SUPPORTIVE.
BUT WE WERE OBVIOUSLY DOING THE WRONG THING.
WE OBVIOUSLY USED THE WRONG
STRATEGY, THE COMPETENCE OF THE
LAST ADMINISTRATION IN CARRYING
OUT THAT WAR, AND BUILDING A
PEACE WAS ABYSMAL.
WE COULD HAVE DONE WHAT WE DID
IN AFGHANISTAN AND LET THE
IRAQIS LIBERATE THEMSELVES FROM
SADDAM HUSSEIN'S TYRANNY.
THE HUMAN AND FINANCIAL COSTS OF
THE IRAQ LIBERATION AND HOW IT
WAS ACCOMPLISHED ALL,ALL OF THE
INCOMPETENCE THAT WENT WITH IT,
WILL BE THE SUBJECT OF SCRUTINY
FOR YEARS TO COME.
HOWEVER, WE HAVE MOVED FORWARD
AND THERE IS SOME SIGN, THERE IS
EVERY SIGN
AND THAT SUCCESS, IT'S CLEAR
THAT THAT SUCCESS WAS BROUGHT
ABOUT NOT NECESSARILY BY LARGE
NUMBERS OF U.S. TROOPS BUT
INSTEAD, NOT JUST THE SURGE OF
TROOPS, BUT GENERAL
ABILITY TO USE FINANCIAL
RESOURCES TO WIN THE LOYALTY OF
SUNNIS AND OTHER LEADERS, TRIBAL
LEADERS, IN IRAQ.
BUT WHAT IS ALSO CLEAR IS THAT
OUR IRAQ FOCUS AFTER THE DEFEAT
OF THE TALIBAN PREVENTED US FROM
ING WHAT WAS RIGHT BY THE
AFGHANISTAN PEOPLE AND THERE IS
A COST TO THAT AS WELL.
THERE'S A COST THAT
FOR NOT DOING WHAT WAS RIGHT FOR
THE AFGHAN PEOPLE AND JUST
RUSHING OFF TO COMMIT OUR
TREASURE AND OUR TROOPS INTO
IRAQ.
BY STRETCHING OURSELVES TOO THIN
SO WE COULDN'T DO THE RIGHT
THING IN AFGHANISTAN.
NOW, WHAT IS THAT PRICE THAT
WE'RE PAYING?
NOW AFTER YEARS AFTER THE
INITIAL SUCCESS OF DRIVING THE
TALIBAN OUT, THE TALIBAN'S
RADICAL ISLAMIC THREAT IS
GROWING AND THE RESPONSE TO THIS
THREAT -- SEND IN MORE U.S.
COMBAT TROOPS.
WHENEVER THAT'S BEEN TRIED
JUST A SIMPLE ANSWER, IT'S
FAILED.
WHENEVER THERE'S BEEN UNCONVENTIONAL WARFARE THAT
WE'VE HAD TO DEAL WITH, THAT
STRATEGY OF SENDING IN MORE U.S.
COMBAT UNITS HAS NOT WORKED,
WHETHER IN VIETNAM OR
AFGHANISTAN OR ANYWHERE
FOREIGN TROOPS IN A FOREIGN LAND
FIGHTING AS COMBAT UNITS WILL
ALMOST ALWAYS END UP IN HOSTILE
TERRITORY AND EVEN T
INCLINED OTHERWISE WILL
EVENTUALLY TURN AGAINST FOREIGN
TROOPS TO SIDE WITH THEIR OWN
COUNTRYMEN.
THAT DYNAMIC IS VERY EASY TO IDENTIFY.
PRESIDENT OBAMA IS BEING ASKED
BY GENERAL MCCHRYSTAL WHO I
DEEPLY ADMIRE TO SEND 35,000
MORE U.S. COMBAT TROOPS INTO AFGHANISTAN.
IF MY EXPERIENCE TELLS ME
ANYTHING IT IS THAT THE
INTRODUCTION OF MORE U.S. COMBAT
UNITS INTO AFGHANISTAN WILL BE
COUNTERPRODUCTIVE AND PERHAPS
DISASTROUS.
AND THE LIKELY DOWNSIDE TO
SENDING MORE U.S. COMBAT TROOPS
IS RECOGNIZED BY OUR OWN U.S.
AMBASSADOR TO AFGHANISTAN.
HE IS A CAREER MILITARY OFFICER
WITH IMPECCABLE CREDENTIALS AND
AN EXEMPLARY RECORD.
HE HAS TOLD PRESIDENT OBAMA THAT
MORE U.S. TROOPS WILL MEAN THAT
THE AFGHANS WILL REMAIN
DEPENDENT ON OUR MILITARY RATHER
THAN STEPPING FORWARD AND
FIGHTING THEIR O BATTLE.
BY SENDING MORE U.S. COMBAT
TROOPS WE WILL ENCOURAGE EXACTLY
THE WRONG BEHAVIOR BY THE
AFGHANS.
AND OBVIOUSLY THE AFGHANS HAVE
PROVED TIME AND AGAIN THAT THEY
ARE WILLING TO FIGHT.
THEY'RE WILLING TO FIGHT FOR
THEIR FAMILIES, FOR THEIR
VILLAGES, FOR THEIR WAY OF LIFE
AND, YES, THEY'RE WILLING TO
FIGHT FOR AFGHANISTAN.
WELL, THAT IS SO OBVIOUS YET THE
EASY ANSWER FOR AMERICA'S
DECISIONMAKERS IS TO SEND MORE
U.S. COMBAT TROOPS.
WELL, EASY ANSWERS HAVE SUCH --
HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF APPEAL TO
POWER BROKERS BUT EVENY -- EASY
ANSWERS DON'T -- USUALLY DON'T E THE PROBLEM.
YES, SENDING MORE U.S. COMBAT
TROOPS SOUNDS LESS COMPLICATED
THAN HAVING TO DEAL WITH
AFGHANISTAN ETHNIC, TRIBAL AND
VILLAGE LEADERS ON THE GROUND.
SENDING MORE TROOPS SOUNDS A LOT
EASIER AND LESS COMPLICATED THAN
UNDOING THE HORRENDOUS STRATEGIC
MISTAKES OUR STATE DEPARTMENT
HAS MADE IN FORCING A FOREIGN
STRUCTURE ON TO AFGHAN SOCIETY
SINCE 9/11.
IN SHORT, OUR GOVERNMENT HAS
TRIED TO FORCE THE PEOPLE OF
AFGHANISTAN TO ACCEPT
CENTRALIZED RULE FROM KABUL AND
EVEN IF KABUL, EVEN
GOVERNMENT WASN'T CORRUPT, EVEN
IF KARZAI'S BROTHER WASN'T A
DRUG DEALER, THE CENTRALIZED
POWER AND DECISIONMAKING THAT WE
HAVE TRIED TO FORCE ON THE
AFGHAN PEOPLE, OR AT LEAST
SUPPORTED THAT BEING PUT ON
THEM, IS TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE
AFGHAN HISTORY AND CULTURE.
THESE PEOPLE ARE BRAVE.
THEY WILL NOT BE SUBDUED AND
PACIFIED BY A KABUL ARMY OR
ESPECIALLY BY A FOREIGN ARMY,
EVEN IF IT'S OUR ARMY. NO.
WE MUST MAKE ALLIES OF THE
BRAVE PEOPLE OF AFGHANISTAN,
NOT SEND IN MORE U.S. COMBAT
TROOPS TO FIGHT THEM.
EVEN IF OUR TROOPS FIGHT
AGAINST THEIR ENEMIES,
STILL WRONG BECAUSE EVEN IF
WE'RE FIGHTING AGAINST THE
TALIBAN, WHAT ARE OUR ENEMY,
WRONG.
BECAUSE IT CREATES A DEPENDENCY
OF THE OTHER AFGHANS ON US TO
DO THEIR FIGHTING.
AND INHE LONG RUN, THE BRAVE,
COURAGEOUS PEOPLE OF
AFGHANIS
THAT WE HAVE MADE THEM
DEPENDENT UPON US.
THAT WILL NOT BE APPRECIATED.
THEY ARE -- THEY ARE PEOPLE OF
TREMENDO
I WALKED TO -- WALKED
AFGHANISTAN THAT ONE WEEK I
SPENT IN JALABAD.
THESE PEOPLE IF THEY GOT
WOUNDED, THEY WERE GONE.
THERE WAS NO MEDICAL
EVACUATION.
WHEN THEY WERE WOUND, --
WOUNDED, THEY DIDN'T CRY OUT IN PAIN.
YOU HAD YOUNG PEOPLE THERE
FIGHTING ALONGSIDE ELDERLY PEOPLE.
THESE PEOPLE WERE A COUNTRY.
A BRAVE AND COURAGEOUS COUNTRY.
AND I REMBER AS WE WALKED
THROUGH THE COUNTRY SIDE,
PEOPLE, THE SOUTHERN PART OF
THAT COUNTRY HAD BEEN BLOWN
ASUNDER BY SOVIET AIRPLANES,
PEOPLE WERE LIVING IN CAVES AND
THEY WOULD COME OUT THEY DIDN'T
KNOW THAT I WASN'T AN AFGHAN,
THEY DIDN'T KNOW I WAS AN AMERICAN.
I HAD A BEARD, AN AK-47 STRAP
AID CROSS MY SHOULDER, THEY
CAME AND SAID, LET US,
MUJAHIDEEN, OUR BROTHER, LET US
GIVE YOU SOME TEA AND BREAD.
THE PEOPLE WOULD COME OUT OF
CAVES WHERE THEIR FAMILIES WERE
LIVING, AS WE LEFT, SOME OF THE
MUJAHIDEEN LEADERS WITH ME
SAID, THAT'S ALL THE BREAD THEY
HAD, THEIR FAMILY WOULD NOT --
WILL NOT HAVE THAT BREAD
TONIGHT.
WHAT KIND OF PEOPLE ARE THEY?
THEY ARE PEOPLE OF
INTEGRITY, SHARING THEIR BREAD
BECAUSE THEY WERE PART OF THAT
NATIONAL EFFORT.
WE DON'T WANT THAT POWER AND
STRENGTH TURNED AGAINST US.
WE WANT THEM ON OUR SIDE AND WE
MUST BE ON THEIR SIDE, SENDING
MORE U.S. COMBAT TROOPS WILL
NOT DO THAT, ACCOMPLISH THAT MISSION.
U.S. ARMY GENERAL -- EXCUSE ME,
U.S. ARMY MAJOR JIM GAFFEE HAS
WRITTEN A BOOK CALLED ONE TRIBE
TIME.
IN IT HE TELLS OF BEING EMBED
WITH AFGHAN VILLAGERS.
HE LAYS OUT A STRATEGY TO
DEFEAT THE TALIBAN FROM THE
THE TOP DOWN.
CERTAINLY, WE WILL DEFEAT THEM
NOT BY SENDING IN MORE AMERICAN
COMBAT UNITS TO DO THE
FIGHTING, BUT INSTEAD, LET
THESE FEROCIOUS PEOPLE DO THEIR
OWN FIGHTING WITH OUR SUPPORT.
IT'S A COST-EFFECTIVE PLAN AND
EVEN THOUGH IT'S
THAN SIMPLY SENDING MORE
TROOPS, IT'S THE ONLY PLAN THAT
CAN SUCCEED.
IT'S FOCUSED ON SENDING OUR
TEAMS, COMBAT TEAMS TO LIVE
WITH THE
VILLAGES, HELPING THEM BUILD
THEIR MILITIA STCTURE,
PROVIDING THEM GUNS AND AM MOE
AND BUYING GOOD WILL AMONG
THEIR LEADERS AND PERHAPS
HELPING THEM REBUILD THEIR
COUNTRY'S INFRASTRUCTURE.
PERHAPS A CLINIC IN THE REGION,
PERHAPS HELPING THEM GET A
CLEAN WATER SUPPLY.
AFTER BEGAN -- AFGHAN HAS THE
THIRD HIGHEST INFANT MORTALITY
RATE OF ANY COUNTRY IN THE
WORLD.
YET WE WANT TO SPEND OUR MONEY
SENDING TROOP AFTER WE PROMISED
TO HELP THEM REBUILD THEIR SOCIETY.
THEY STILL LOSE THEIR CHILDREN
NOT JUST TO LAND MINES THAT
WEREN'T CLEARED OFF BUT TO THE
DIRTY WATTER THAT DESTROY
THEIRS CHILDREN'S LIVES AND
MAKES THEM SICK AND MAKES
DIE OF DIARRHEA, IT'S A
TERRIBLE THING.
WHAT ARE THE COSTS OF THE
35,000 TROOPS THAT IS BEING
SUGGESTED WE SEND TO AFGHANISTAN?
ALREADY I'M SAYING THAT THE
STRATEGY DOESN'T WORK, BUT WHAT
IS THE ACTUAL FINANCIAL COST?
THE COST IS $35 BILLION.
$1 BILLION FOR EVERY 1,000
TROOPS.
ANNUALLY.
$35 BILLION.
WE CAN BUY ALL THE GOOD WILL WE
NEED AND WE CAN HELP
AFGHANISTAN FOR FATHER LESS
THAN IT WILL -- FOR FAR LESS
THAN IT WILL COSTOR ONE YEAR
WITH 35,000 COMBAT
$1 BILLION WE COULD BUY THE
GOOD WILL OF THE TRIBAL AND
ETHNIC LEADERS.
FOR A VERY SMALL AMOUNT OF
MONEY WE CAN HELP THEM BUILD UP
THEIR OWN MILITIAS IN WHICH
THEY CAN DEFEND
NOT WORRY IS THE U.S. GOING TO
GO AWAY AND LEAVE US VULNERABLE?
AMERICANS CANNOT PATROL,
SUBDUE, AND PACIFY EVERY AREA
OF THE GLOBE WHERE HOSTILE
FORCES LURK, ESPECIALLY IN AFGHANISTAN.
IT WILL BREAK OUR BANK.
OUR YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN IN
ARMED SERVICES WILL BE
UNNECESSARILY KILLED AND
MAIMED.
AND IN THE END, THE SAME THING
WILL HAPPEN TO US THAT HAPPENED
TO THE SOVIET EMPIRE.
IT WILL BREAK OUR BANK.
AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL
NOT BE WILLING TO SHOULDER RESPONSIBILITY ANYWHERE IN THE
WORLD BECAUSE OF THE HORRENDOUS
COMPLICATIONS THAT HAVE ARISEN
FROM OUR JUMPING IN TO DOING
THE BATTLE FOR EVERYONE IN
AFGHANISTAN AND OTHER PLACES OF THE WORLD.
AND YES, WE DO NEED TO USE OUR
MILITARY FORCES IN PLACES.
BUT IF WE DO THIS, IF WE SEND
THEM OFF TO MISSIONS THAT CAN'T
BE ACCOMPLISHED, WE ARE NOT
DOING OUR DUTY BY THEM.
IF -- HOW DO WE KNOW THAT?
IF THERE ARE TWO MILITARY
TRUISMS, HISTORY LESSONS THAT
SOUF BEEN LEARNED IN THE LAST
CENTURY, THEY ARE, DON'T MARCH
ON MOSCOW, AND DON'T INVADE
AFGHANISTAN.
AFGHANISTAN WILL NOT FALL TO
THE TALIBAN IF WE SUPPORT THOSE
BRAVE PEOPLE WHO DEFEATED THE
TALIBAN.
RUSH TO CENTRALIZE POW FOR THE
KABUL, ACTUALLY ORGANIZED THE
EFFORT AND PUSHED THE POLICY OF
DISARMING THE ANTI-TALIBAN
NORTHERN ALLIANCE AFTER THEIR
INITIAL VICTORY.
THEY HAVE
DWOTCH THE MILITIAS, EVERY
VILLAGE IN AFGHANISTAN, EVERY
MALE CHILD, IS CONSIDERED TO BE
PART OF THE GROUP AND IS
EXPECTED TO LEARN TO USE THE
WEAPONS OF THE DAY.
THAT MILITIA, WE CAN MOBILIZE THAT.
WHEN THEY SAY TO US AGAIN, AND
I'VE READ THESE ACCOUNTS OVER
AND OVER AGAIN, THEY ARE AFRAID
AMERICA WILL ABANDON THEM AGAIN.
WHY ARE THEY AFRAID?
WE HAVEN'T GIVEN THEM THE
TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.
WE SHOULD NOT ONLY GIVE THEM
THE MEANS, BUT HELP THEM,
SUPPORT THEM, PROVIDE THEM
SUPPORT, GIVE THEM THE
FINANCIAL SUPPORT AND
COMMUNICATIONS GEAR SO THEY CAN
ACCOMPLISH VICTORY AGAINST
RADICAL ISLAM.
THAT'S THE ONLY WAY RADICAL
ISLAM CAN BE DEFEATED, NOT BY
SENDING TROOPS ALL OVER THE
WORLD AND INTO AFGHANISTAN.
YET OUR FOREIGN SERVICE
CONTINUES TO RELY ON MORE
FOREIGN TROOPS AND YES, ON
BUILDING A NATIONAL ARMY IN
AFGHANISTAN THAT WILL BE
CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT IN
KABUL.
A CORRUPT GOVERNMENT WHO IS --
PEOPLE OF AFGHANISTAN AND NOT
EVEN TRUSTED BY OUR OWN
LEADERS.
THIS IS EXACTLY THE WRONG
APPROACH.
INSTEAD, AS I SAY, WE SHOULD
ARM EVERY VILLAGE MILITIA WHICH
WILL ALIGN WITH US.
ANY VILLAGE MILITIA THAT WILL
ASHRINE -- ALIGN WITH US, WE
SHOULD BE ON THEIR SIDE.
WE SHOULD GIVE THEM GUNS, AMMO
AND COMMUNICATIONS GEAR.
LET'S HAVE SPECIAL FORCES TEAMS
EMBEDDED IN THE VILLAGES LIKE
MAJOR JIM GRANT HAS TOLD US
WOULD BE AN EFFECTIVE STRATEGY.
THAT STRATEGY, AND BUYING THE
GOOD WILL OF TRAL LEADERS, OF
PEOPLE WHO WERE THERE
THEIR -- THIS IS A NATURALLY DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY FROM THE
BOTTOM UP.
BY THE WAY, OUR COULDN'T ARERY
WOULD HAVE FD WE
INSISTED THAT ALL THE POWER,
POLITICAL POWER IN OUR COUNTRY
WOULD BE DECIDED BY THE CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT.
IT'S THE STATES IN OUR COUNTRY
THAT CONTROL THE EDUCATION.
IT'S THE STATES THAT BASICALLY
CONTROL THE POLICE AND THE
JUSTICE OF OUR PEOPLE.
AND HAD WE NOT HAD THAT POLICY
FROM DAY ONE, OUR COUNTRY WOULD
NOT HAVE SUCCEEDED.
EEN TRYING TO
PUSH ON PEOPLE
MORE PROTECTIVE OF THEIR RIGHTS
TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS --
DECISIONS FOR THEIR OWN
VILLAGES.
WE'RE TRYING TO PUSH A CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT ON THEM WHICH THEY
DON'T EVEN KNOW.
WELL THAT STRATEGY OF BUYING
THE GOOD WILL TRIBAL LEADERS
WILL CARRY THE DAY.
WE CAN GO IN AND IDENTIFY WITH
THESE LEADERS THERE, WORK WITH
THEM, WORK WITH THEIR PEOPLE,
THAT IS A STRATEGY.
YES, THERE -- AS THE MAJOR
SAYS, THERE'S RISK IN THIS BUT
THE GREATER RISK IS A STRATEGY
OF SEND MANAGER COMBAT UNITS
WHICH RUMBLE THROUGH THE
COUNTRYSIDE, I MET WITH A GROUP
OF AFGHAN
WEEK, AND THEY TOLD ME THAT
WHAT THEY WERE TOLD TO DO BUT
THEIR COMMANDING OFFICERS
YOU JUST TAKE HIKES THROUGH THE
COUNTRYSID
AT AND THEN THEY START FIRING
BACK.
OR THEY DRIVE THEIR TRUCKS AND
THEIR VEHICLES THROUGH THE
AFGHAN COUNTRYSIDE AND THROUGH
AFGHAN VILLAGES UNTIL
SHOT AT ORHEY RUN OVER SOME
KIND OF EXPLOSIVE DEVICE.
THEN THEY RETALIATE.
THAT IS NOT A STRATEGY FOR
VICTORY.
THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU
SEND MAJOR COMBAT UNIT I
COUNTRY RATHER THAN TRYING TO
DEFEAT THE ENEMY IN THAT
COUNTRY FROM THE BOTTOM UP,
RATHER THAN INSERTING SOMETHING
FROM THE TOP DOWN.
NO, SUCH A STRATEGY OF HELPING
THE VILLAGERS THERE IN
AFGHANISTAN WHO HAVE LIVED
UNDER THE TALIBAN, THEY HATE
THE TALIBAN, THEY HAVE SEEN
THEIR SCHOOL TEACHERS BEHEADED,
THEY HAVE SEEN THEIR YOUNG
GIRLSEING TREATED LIKE DIRT
AND LIKE ANIMALS, THEY DO NOT
WANT TO LIVE THAT WAY.
AND THEY WILL NOT SUBMIT TO THE
TALIBAN UNLESS, OF COURSE, THEY
AREN'T GIVEN ANY CHANCE TO
DEFEND THEMSELVES.
THE STRATEGY OF HELPING THOSE
PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING TO FIGHT
AGAINST THAT FORM OF RADICAL
ISLAM THAT THEY KNOW AND
DESPICE, THAT IS A
COST-EFFECTIVE WAY OF DEALING
WITH THE CHALLENGES THAT WE
CONFRONT IN AFGHANISTAN.
IT WILL COST LESS IN BLOOD.
WE WON'T BE
IN HARM'S WAY, AND YES, SOME
TEAMS THAT GO THERE YES SOME OF
THESE AMS THAT WILL BE
EMBEDED WITH THOSE VILLAGERS
WILL -- SOME MEMBERS OF THOSE
TEAMS WILL LOSE THEIR LIVES.
I WOULD SAY, AND MAJOR GANT
SAYS SO AS WELL, THAT FAR FEWER
AMERICAN MILITARY PERSONNEL
WILL LOSE THEIR LIVES THAT WAY
THAN IF WE CONTINUE THE
STRATEGY, WHICH IS BASICALLY
ALIENATING THE P
AFGHANISTAN WHO EVENTUALLY WILL
RISE UP AGAINST US, BECAUSE THE
STRATEGY IS NOT SOMETHING THAT
TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THEIR OWN --
THEIR OWN NEEDS AT THE VILLAGE
AND TRIBAL LEVEL.
IT WILL
IT WILL COST US LESS IN
TREASURE THAN SENDING MORE
COMBAT TROOPS.
TO USE MAJOR GANT'S STRATEGY
AND A STRATEGY OF WORKING AT
THE BOTTOM LEVEL RATHER
JUST SENDING IN MORE TROOPS.
TO HELP THEM REBUI THEIR
COUNTRY AT LONG LAST, REBUILD
THEIR COUNTRY AFTER WE PROMISED
THEM OF WHAT WE DO AFTER THEY
DEFEATED THE SOVIET ARMY AND
AFTER THEY KICKE OUT THE
TALIBAN.
BUT WE OWE IT NOT ONLY TO THE
AFGHAN PEOPLE TO LOOK VERY
SERIOUSLY ABOUT THIS, BUT WE
OWE IT TO OUR TROOP NOT TO SEND
THEM ON A MANAGES THEY CANNOT
ACCOMPLISH.
WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY AT THIS
TIME TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND
NOT JUST TO PLACE OURSELVESES
IN A POSITION TO END UP WITH A
MILITARY, DIPLOMATIC, AND
FINANCIAL AND HUMAN
EMBARRASSMENT THAT WE WILL HAVE
LOST SO MANY PEOPLE AND SO MANY
LIVES FOR NOTHING, FOR AN
OUTCOME, ANOTHER QUAGMIRE.
I HAVE ONE LAST STORY I'D LIKE
TO END MY SPEECH ON TONIGHT.
IT'S A STORY THAT I WANT TO
MAKE SURE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND.
WHAT I AM SAYING TODAY IS NOT
IN ANY WAY A REFLECTION
-- A BAD REFLECTION ON OUR
MILITARY.
THE FACT IS, I MET WITH OUR
VETERANS FROM AFGHANISTAN THE
OTHER DAY -- LAST WEEK IN MY
OFFICE THEY SUPPT THIS
STRATEGY.
JUST BECAUSE I'M SAYING THEY
CAN'T DO EVERYTHING AND FIGHT
EVERY BATTLE DOESN'T MEAN I
DON'T RESPT THEM.
IN FACT, I BELIEVE THEY ARE
HEROES.
EVERY ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE
WILLING TO PUT THEIR LIVES ON
THE LINE, THEY ARE MEE ROES.
THEY ARE WILLING TO RISK THEIR LIVES FOR US.
WE OWE THEM OUR BEST JUDGMENT,
NOT JUST AN EASYANCE OF SEND
MANAGER LITARY PEOPLE -- AN
EASY ANSWER OF SENDING MORE
MILITARY PEOPLE INTO CONFLICT.
I GREW UP IN A MARINE FAMILY,
MY FATHER WAS A LIEUTENANT
COLONEL IN THE MARINES, WE WERE
STATIONED AT MARINE BASES UNTIL
I WA 16.
MY GRADUATED FROM CAMP
LEJEUNHIGH SCHOOL IN 1963.
HIS BEST BUDDY, VERY BEST BUDDY
GRADUATED FROM HIGH SCHOOL WITH
HIM AND IMMEDIATELY JOINED THE
MARINE CORPS.
WHEN HE WAS 17 YEARS OLD.
DAVID BATTLE.
DAVID BATTLE JOINED THE MARINE
CORPS RIGHT AFTER THE GRADUATED
WITH MY BROTHER AND HE WAS MY
BROTHER'S BEST FRIEND.
WELL, YEARS LATER, WHEN I WENT
TO THE WHITE HOUSE WITH RONALD
REAGAN, I WENT TO THE INAUGURAL
CEREMONY AND THEN I HAD OFF FOR
ABOUT A WEEK BEFORE I WOULD --
OR A COUPLE
WOULD START ON THE PAYROLL IN
THE WHITE HOUSE.
MY FAMILY, MY MOTHER AND
AND BROTHER CAME TO THE
INAUGURATION IN 1980, THEN WE
RENTED A CAR AND DROVE TO CAMP
LEJEUNE, WHERE WE USED TO LIVE,
TO SEE IF WE COULD REMAKE OLD
WE FOUND MY BROTHER'S BEST AND
DEAREST FRIEND, SERGEANT DAVID BATTLE.
HE WAS WELL ON HIS WAY TO
RETIREMENT, ALREADY BOUGHT
HIMSELF, ONLY A COUPLE OF YEARS
AWAY, BOUGHT HIMSELF
THAT HE WAS GOING TO DIG CLAMS
AND MUSSELS AND -- OUT IN THE
INLANDS IN NORTH CAROLINA AND
SELL IT TO THE LOCAL FISH
MARKETS, HE WOULD HAVE HIS RETIREMENT.
HE'D SERVED TWO TOURS OF DUTY
IN VIETNAM.
A WONDERFUL MAN WITH A WONDERFUL
FAMILY.
HIS PARENTS WERE THERE, HIS
LOVELY WIFE WAS THERE WITH THEIR
TWO CHILDREN AND WE HAD AN
EVENING THINK A WILL N
FORGET, A GREAT NORTH CAROLINA EVENING.
AND THEN THE NEXT DAY MY FAMILY
DROVE TO WASHINGTON AND I
ENTERED THE WHITE HOUSE AND
RESUMED MY AND TOOK MY PLACE AT
PRESIDENT REAGAN'S STAFF.
PRESIDENT REAGAN, AS I HAVE
MENTIONED, SET THE MARINES,
DEPLOYED OUR AMERICAN MARINES
INTO BEIRUT.
IT WAS NOT A GOOD DECISION.
IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS A
RISKY PROPOSITION AND HAD VERY LITTLE CHANCE OF SUCCESS.
I
LOT OF PEOPLE.
BUT WHAT ESPECIALLY CAUGHT MY
EYE WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT THAT
WAS THAT THE STATE DEPARTMENT
HAD INITIATED A POLICY, A RULE
OF ENGAGEMENT THAT WAS ACCEPTED
BY THE MILITARY THAT THE MARINES
WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO HAVE
BULLETS IN THEIR GUNS.
THEIR CLIPS AND RIFLES
BE IN THEIR RIFLES, IT WOULD BE
IN POUCHES BECAUSE THE STATE
DEPARTMENT WAS SO AFRAID THEY
MIGHT GET TRIGGER HAPPY.
THEY WERE SHOT AT.
YEAH.
SO WE -- I WENT AROUND -- I WENT
AROUND TO OFFICES IN THE
HOUSE AND I POUNDED ON THE DESK
SAYS, -- SAYING, WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE?
HOW CAN WE SEND PEOPLE IN AND
TELL OUR SOLDIERS AND MARINES
THEY CAN'T HAVE BULLETS IN THEIR
GUNS?
THIS IS INSAN
AND I WAS TOLD OVER AND OVER
AGAIN, DON'T WORRY, DANA,
WORRY.
BUD MCFARLAND, GEORGE SHOLET,
JIM BAKER, THEY'RE ALL FORMER
MARINES.
THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE CARE OF THIS.
AND IT DIDN'T GET TAKEN CARE OF.
BECAUSE AFTER I LEFT AND WAS
ASSURED IT WOULD BE TAKEN CARE
THE BOTTOM OF THE STACK AND
OUR TROOPS, OUR
CONTINUED FOR WEEKS TO BE IN
HARM'S WAY WITHOUT BULLETS IN THEIR GUNS.
AND AGAIN I ASSUMED THAT THESE
PEOPLE WERE GOING TO HANDLE IT.
I WAS TOLD THAT THEY WOULD.
THEN A HORRIBLE DAY WHEN AN
ISLAMIC TERRORIST DROVE A TRUCK
FILLED WITH EXPLOSIVES THROUGH
THE GUARD GATE OUT
COMPOUND AND THE ISLAMIC TERRORIST SMILING BECAUSE HE
KNEW OUR GUARDS COULDN'T STOP
THEM BECAUSE THEIR GUNS WERE
UNLOADED AND HE DROVE THAT TRUCK
INTO THE MARINE BARRACKS AND
BLEW 290 MARINES TO HELL.
290 MARINES.
AND I LOOKED DESPERATELY.
I LOOKED TO SEE WHO IT WAS AND
THE FIRST NAME THE LIST OF
CASUALTIES WAS SERGEANT DAVID
BATTLE, MY BROTHER'S BEST
FRIEND.
I WENT TO MY OFFICE AND I
THAT DAY.
AND THEN I STOPPED CRYING
BECAUSE I SAID, I'M GOING MAKE A
RESOLUTION RIGHT HERE AND NOW
THAT I WILL NEVER CEASE TO BE
PUSHING AND PUSHING AND TRY TO
CORRECT THE SITUATION THAT I KNOW IS WRONG.
IF IT TAKES ME BEING OBNOXIOUS,
I WILL DO THAT.
BECAUSE WE OWE IT, WE OWE IT TO
THE PEOPLE WHO DEFEND US, THE
SERGEANT DAVID BATTLES, THEY
SALUTE AND MARCH OFF AND PUT
THEMSELVES IN HARM'S WAY.
THEY ARE DOING THEIR DUTY.
IT IS UP TO US TO DO OUR DUTY BY
THEM AND NOT SEND THEM ON A
MISSION THAT THEY CANN
ACCOMPLISH AND NOT SEND THEM
INTO HARM'S WAY TO LOSE THEIR
LIVES FOR NOTHING.
TODAY WE HAVE A MAJOR DECISION
TO MAKE IN AFGHANISTAN.
IT IS WHAT I WOULD CALL ON ALL
OF MY COLLEAGUES TO STAND UP AND
BE COUNTED ON THIS ISSUE,
SERIOUSLY CONSIDER WHAT THE
CHANCES OF SUCCESS ARE AND IF
THEY AGREE WITH ME, THAT THE
APPROACH BEING TAKEN OF SENDING
MORE TROOPS IN, THAT WE STAN
AND WE PREVENT THIS POLICY, LIKE
THE POLICY OF SENDING OUR TROOPS
INTO
THEIR GUNS, IS DEFEATED.
AND WE SHOULD NOT ASSUME THAT
JUST SENDING THOSE GUYS THERE
WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED BECAUSE
OTHER PEOPLE WILL WATCH OVER AND
MAKE SURE THE JOB'S DONE
CORRECTLY.
AND THAT OUR TROOPS ARE SAFE.
IT IS UP TO US.
EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US.
TO INSIST THAT THIS STRATEGY OF
SIMPLY SENDING IN MORE TROOPS AT
$35 BILLION, A STRATEGY THAT'S
MORE LIKELY TO WORK AND
ACCOMPLISH WHAT WE WANT TO
ACCOMPLISH IS PUT INTO PLACE.
A STRATEGY THAT WILL KEEP FAITH
WITH THE AFGHANISTAN PEOPLE --
AFGHAN PEOPLE INSTEAD OF JUST
SIMPLY RELYING ON AMERICANS
DOING MORE OF THE FIGHTING, HELP
THEM REBUILD THEIR COUNTRY,
REARM THEM, ARM THEM SO THEY CAN
DO THEIR
WE OWE IT TO OUR TROOPS, WE
IT TO OUR MARINES, WE OWE IT TO
THE SERGEANT DAVID BATTLES WHO
HAVE GIVEN THEIR LIVES OVER THE
YEARS FOR OUR COUNTRY TO MAKE
SURE WE DO OUR DUTY BY THEM
THEY DO THEIR DUTY BY US.
WITH THAT I YIELD BACK THE BALANC
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
GENTLEMAN YIELDS BACK THE
BALANCE OF HIS TIME. THE CHAIR LAYS BEFORE THE HOUSE
THE FOLLOWING ENROLLED
THE CLERK: H.R. 955, AN ACT TO
DESIGNATE THE FACILITY OF THE
UNED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
LOCATED AT 103 5 IN
AS THE JOHN BUD HAWK POST
OFFICE.
THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: UNDER
THE SPEAKER'S ANNOUNCED POLICY
OF JANUARY 6, 2009, THE CHAIR
RECOGNIZES THE GENTLEMAN FROM
TEXAS, MR. GOHMERT, FOR 60 MINUTES.
MR. GOHMERT: THANK YOU, MR. SPEAKER.
IT'S A PLEASURE TO BE HERE ON
THE HOUSE FLOOR.
SPECIALY WHEN YOU KNOW THE
HISTORY OF THIS FLOOR --
ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU KNOW THE
HISTORY OF THIS FLOOR AND ALL
THAT'S BEEN DOING TO -- DONE TO
KEEP AMERICANS SAFE.
THE REACTION ON THIS FLOOR BY
GREAT AMERICAN LEADERS AFT
TRAGEDIES SUCH AS WE HAD AFTER
PEARL HARBOR WHEN THE PRESIDENT
OF THE UNITED STATES SPOKEFROM
THAT ELECTRIC TURN RIGHT THERE
-- LECTURN RIGHT THERE, AFTER
PEARL HARBOR.
BEFORE 9/11 THAT WAS THE WORST
ATTACK ON AMERICAN SOIL.
9/11 CHANGED THINGS
SUBSTANTIALLY.
FOR ONE THING, I NEVER THOUGHT
DURING MY FOUR YEARS IN THE ARMY
GOING BACK TO THE 1970'S THAT
WE'D EVER SEE PATRIOTISM AT A
LEVEL THAT IT IS TODAY WHERE
PEOPLE ACTUALLY APPRECIATE
PEOPLE BEING IN THE SERVICE.
THE VIETNAM VETS KNEW WHAT IT
WAS LIKE TO COME HOME AND TO BE
SPIT AT AND RIDICULED.
I KNOW WHEN I WEPT THROUGH FORT
RILEY THERE WAS A
WEAR UNIFORMS OFF POST BECAUSE
THERE WAS SUPPOSEDLY VIOLENCE
THAT WAS DONE, THERE WER
BEAT UP WHO WERE IN THE SERVICE.
BUT SOMEHOW FOR A WHILE THERE
9/11 BROUGHT THIS NATION
TOGETHER.
WHERE PEOPLE BEGAN TO TAKE
NOTICE AND CARE ABOUT FIRST
RESPONDERS AND THEY BEGAN TO
CARE ABOUT EACH OTHER AND ON
SEPTEMBER 12, THERE HAD ON OUR
COURTHOUSE SQUARE IN SMITH
COUNTY, TEXAS, WE HAD PEOPLE OF
ALL WALKS OF LIFE JOIN TOGETHER,
HUGE GROUP CAME, AND IT
CULMINATED IN EVERYONE HOLDING
HANDS AND SINGING GOD BLESS
AMERICA AND AS I LIKED -- LOOKED
AROUND THERE WAS NOT ONE SINGLE
HYPHENATED AMERICAN. AMERICANS.
ALL KINDS OF RACES, GENDERS,
CEDES, COLOR -- CREEDS, COLOR,
WE WERE JUST AME
AFTER 9/11 WE REALIZED THAT FOR
THE FIRST TIME IN OUR HISTORY
THE OCEANS DID NOT PROVIDE THE
PROTECTION THAT THEY ONCE DID
AS AN OLD HISTORY MAJOR AT TEXAS
A&M AND CONTINUING TO BE A
STUDENT OF HISTORY SINCE, I
DON'T KNOW OF ANOTHER NATION IN
THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD THAT
HAS BEEN SO BLESSED AND
PROTECTED AS WE WERE WITH THE
ATLANTIC AND THE PACIFIC OCEANS.
EVEN AUSTRALIA WAS -- WHICH WAS
SURROUNDED BY WATER, ALWAYS HAD
TO FEAR INVASIONS.
BUT AFTER THE WAR OF 1812 FOR
E MOST PART WE DIDN'T HAVE TO
WORRY ABOUT EXTERNAL
MUCH AS WE WERE ABLE TO THINK
ABOUT MANIFEST DESTINY, MOVING
AND SETTLING THE CONTINENT, THE
INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION.
HAVING THE EFFORT TO MAKE THE
CONSTITUTION MEAN THE SAME FOR
ALL PEOPLE, NO MATTER WHAT RACE,
CREED, COLOR, GENDER.
BUT 9/11 SENT A MESSAGE THAT THE
OCEANS NO LONGER PROTECTED US.
THAT EVEN HAD TO TAKE MORE
MEASURES TO PROTECT OURSELVES.
I RECALL BACK IN THE 1980'S IT
BEING SAID THAT ONE OF THE GREAT
THINGS ABOUT THE ATLANTIC AND
PACIFIC IS IF SOMEBODY INTENDED
TO BE A SUICIDE BOMBER, THEY
WOULD LOSE THEIR NERVE CROSSING THE OCEAN.
CERTAINLY ANYBODY THAT MOVED
HERE AND LIVED AMONG AMERICAN
PEOPLE WOULD BEGIN TO SEE HOW
MUCH FREEDOM WE HAVE HERE AND
THEY WOULD BECOME -- THEY WOULD
COME TO LOVE AMERICA AS WE DO
AND THEY WOULD NOT WANT TO BLOW
UP THEIR FRIENDED AND
AGAIN, 9/11 CHANGED ALL THAT.
SO, IF SOMEONE DOESN'T KNOW THE
LESSONS FROM HISTORY THEN THEY
ARE DESTINED TO REPEAT IT AS THE
OLD SAYING GOES.
WELL, THE CONSTITUTION AND I
HAVE A POCKET CONSTITUTION HERE,
ARTICLE 1, SECTION 8, SAYS THE
CONGRESS SHALL HAVE POWER TO AND
ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVE THE
POWER TO DO IN CONGRESS IS
CONSTITUTE TRIBUNALS INFERIOR TO
THE SUPREME COURT.
YOU GET OVER TO ARTICLE 3
SECTION 1, THE JUDICIAL POWER OF
THE UNED STATES SHALL BE
VESTED IN ONE SUPREME COURT AND
IN SUCH INFERIOR COURTS AS THE
CONGRESS MAY FROM TIME TO
ORDAIN AND ESTABLISH.
EVEN THE SUPREME COURT OVER IN
SECTION 2 WHERE IT'S TALKED
ABOUT, IT SAYS IN ALL OF THE
OTHER CASES BEFORE MENTIONED,
THE SUPREME COURT SHALL HAVE
APPELLATE JURISDICTION BUT WITH
SUCH EXCEPTIONS AND UNDER SUCH
REGULATIONS AS THE CONGRESS
SHALL MAKE.
SO THE SUPREME COURT OWES ITS
EXISTENCE TO THE CONSTITUTION.
EVERY SINGLE OTHER COURT IN
AMERICA, FEDERAL COURT, THAT IS,
OWES ITS EXISTENCE TO THE
CONGRESS.
WE CREATE THE COURTS, WE
ESTABLISH THEIR JURISDICTIONS,
HAVE THE RIGHT TO ESTABLISH
THEIR VENUES AND WHEN WE DEALT
WITH THIS ISSUE BACK IN 2005 AND
2006 OF HAVING TO DEAL WITH
TERRORISTS WHO WERE CAPTURED ON
THE FOREIGN BATTLEFIELD, WHAT DO
YOU DO WITH THEM?
YOU CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO
BRING THEM ONTO AMERICAN SOIL
BECAUSE IF DID YOU THAT THERE'D
BE SOME COURT THAT WOULD SAY
THEY HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS AND
PRIVILEGES OF AN AMERICAN
CITIZEN.
WHICH SHOULDN'T BE TRUE BUT
UNTIL SOME COURT SAYS -- THE
SUPREME COURT SAYS IT'S TRUE AND
SINCE WE BELIEVE IN FOLLOWING
THE LAW, EVEN THOUGH SOME COURTS
DO NOT, THEY CREATED INSTEAD OF
FOLLOW IT, WE FOLLOW EVEN THE
RENEGADE COURTS WHEN IT'S THE
LAW OF THE LAND.
SO WE HAD TO DEAL WITH THIS
ISSUE.
FOLLOWING ALL OF THE PRECEDENTS
AND I BELIEVE JUSTICE SCLIA DOES
A PHENOMENAL JOB -- SCALIA DOES
A PHENOMENAL JOB OF DISCUSSING
PRECEDENTS AS DOES CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS IN A CASE, BUT WE HAD TO
DEAL WITH PEOPLE LIKE KHALID
SHEIK MOHAMMED.
KHALID SHEIK MOHAMMED WHICH
CAPTURED IN PAKISTAN ON MARCH 1,
2003, BY THE PAKISTANI I.S.I.
IT MAY HAVE BEEN A JOINT ACTION
WITH AGENTS, THE AMERICAN
DIPLOMATIC SECURITY SERVICE, BUT
HE'S BEEN IN THE U.S. CUSTODY
EVER SINCE THAT TIME.
IN SEPTEMBER OF 2006 THE U.S.
GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCED IT HA
MOVED MUHAMMAD FROM A SECRET
PRISON FACILITY -- MOHAMMED FROM
A SECRET FACILITY TO GUANTANAMO
BAY.
NOW SOME CAME TO BELIEVE THAT
GUANTANAMO IS SUCH A HORRIBLE
PLACE.
THAT IS WHERE WE WATER BOARD
PEOPLE.
THE
APPARENTLY OCCURRED NEVER
OCCURRED AT GUANTANAMO.
THAT WAS ELSEWHERE.
GUANTANAMO BAY IS A PLACE I'VE
BEEN A COUPLE OF TIMES AND
HAVING BEEN A JUDGE I'VE HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLORE AND TOUR
MANY DIFFERENT TYPES OF PRISONS
AND SO ATTENDING TO A TOUR OF
GUANTANAMO BAY FACILITY WAS NOT
UNUSUAL BUT -- EXCEPT THAT IT'S
UNUSUAL TO GET THERE.
YOU DON'T TAKE A COMMERCIAL
FLIGHT TO GUANTANAMO BAY WHICH
IS ONE OF THE REASONS IT'S SUCH
AN IDEAL SPOT FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE
A THREAT TO OUR WAY OF LIFE.
SO WE HAVE ALSO RAMZI BIN-A
LSHAD, WHO WAS KAPTURRED AROUND
SEPTEMBER OF 2002.
HE WAS TRANSFERED TO GUANTANAMO
BAY, CUE BARKS ON OR ABOUT
SEPTEMBER 26, WHERE HE ALSO HAS
REMAINED.
YOU HAVE OTHER PEOPLE BEING
DETAINED THERE THAT WE KNOW,
CONFESSED TERRORISTS AND UNDER
A PLEADING FILED BY KHALID
SHKH MOHAMMED, AS WE HE SA,
WE'RE TERRORISTS TO THE BONE.
IF WE TERRORIZE YOU, SCARE YOU,
KILL YOU, BASICALLY, THANKS BE TO GOD.
THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO DO NOT
BELIEVE WE SHOULD HAVE THE
FREEDOMS THAT WE DO IN AMERICA
BECAUSE THEY THINK FREEDOM
ULTIMATELY LEADS TO DEGRADATION
OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE
COUNTRY, THEREFORE PEOPLE
SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED FREEDOM,
SHE SHOULD BE TOLD WHAT THEY
CAN OR CAN'T DO AND THEY
BELIEVE THEY GET A SPECIAL
PLACE IN PARADISE IF THEY'RE
ABLE TO GOUT IN THIS LIFE
HAVING DESTROYED AND KILLED
WHAT WE CONSIDER INNOCENTS AND
WHAT THEY CONSIDER INFIDELS.
SO WE COME TO THE ANNOUNCEMENT
BY E U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
WHEN HE ANNOUNCED THAT THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WILL
PURSUE PROSECUTION IN FEDERAL
COURT OF FIVE INDIVIDUALS
ACCUSED OF CONSPIRING TO COMMIT
9/11 ATTACKS.
HE SAID FURTHER, I'VE DECIDED
TO REFER BACK TO THE DEFENSE --
THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FIVE
DEFENDANTS TO FACE MILITARY
COMMISSION TALS, INCLUDING
THE DETAINEE PREVIOUSLY CHARGED
IN THE U.S. COLE BOMBING.
THE 9/11 CASES THAT WILL BE
PURSUED IN FEDERAL COURT HAVE
BEEN JOINTLY ASSIGNED TO
PROSECUTORS FROM THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AND THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
AND WI BE BROUGHT IN
MANHATTAN IN THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.
HE GOES ON AND ENDS UP SAYING,
IN MANY -- IN EACH CASE, MY
DECISION AS TO WHETHER TO
PROCEED IN FEDERAL COURT OR
MILITARY COMMISSIONS WAS BASED
ON A PROPERTY KOHL THE
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND
DEFENSE DEVELOPED THAT WAS
ANNOUNCED IN JULY BECAUSE MANY
CASES COULD BE PROSECUTED IN
EITHER FEDERAL COURTS OR
MILITARY COMMISSIONS THAT
PROTOCOL SETS FORTH A NUMBER OF
FACTORS, INCLUDING THE NATURE
OF THE OFFENSE, THE LOCATION IN
WHICH THE OFFENSE OCCURRED, THE
IDENTITY OF THE VICTIMS AND THE
MAN FOR THE WHICH THE CASE WAS
INVESTIGATED THAT MUST BE
CONSIDERED.
IN CONSULTATION WITH THE
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, I'VE
LOOKED AT RELEVANT FACTORS AND
MADE CASE BY CASE DECISIONS FOR
EACH DETAINEE.
WELL, IT WOULDN'T SEEM THAT
HE'S CONSIDERED THE SAFETY AND
THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE
PEOPLE THAT SURVIVED THE ATTACK
ON 9/11 IN NEWORK CITY.
THE MOST DENSELY POPULATED AREA
IN OUR COUNTRY.
IN 2005-2006, THIS CONGRESS
CONSIDERED THESE ISSUES AND I
WOULD SUBMIT GAVE IT BETTER
CONSIDERATION THAN OUR CURRENT
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THE --
WHEN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION
HAD FORMULATED A MILITARY
TRIBUNAL SYSTEM, WITHOUT THE
INPUT FROM CONGRESS, IT WAS
STRUCK DOWN AND RIGHTFULLY SO.
SO CONGRESS GOT INVOLVED.
NOW WHAVE THE MILITARY
COMMISSIONS ACT THAT WAS PASSED
IN 26 AND THE OBAMA
ADMINISTRATION DID NOT LIKE THE
TERM APPLIED TO THE ENEMY
COMBATANTS THAT WERE CAPTURED
ON THE BATTLEFIELD AROUND THE
WORLD, WHO HAD MADE EFFORTS AND
PARTICIPATED IN TH MURDER AND
DESTRUCTION OF AMERICAN LIVES
AND AMERICAN PROPERTY.
SO THE WAY THAT BILL WAS
AMENDED, IT NOW READS, ANY
ALIEN, UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY
BELLIGERENT IS SUBJECT TO TRIAL
BY MILITARY COMMISSION AS CELT
FORTH IN THIS CHAPTER.
-- AS SET FORTH IN THIS
CHAPTER.
YOU HA TO LOOK BACK, ALIEN,
THE TERM ALIEN MEANS AN
INDIVIDUAL WHO IS NOT A CITIZEN
OF THE UNITED STATES.
YOU LOOK AT AN UNPRIVILEGED
ENEMY BELLIGERENT, THE TERM
UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENT
MEANS AN INDIVIDUAL OTHER THAN
A PRIVILEGED BELLIGERENT WHO A,
HAS ENGAGED IN HOSTILITIES
AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OR
ITS COALITION PARTNERS, B, HAS
PURPOSEFULLY AND MATERIALLY
SUPPORTED HOSTILITIES AGAINST
THE UNITED STATES OR ITS
COALITION PARTNERS, OR C, WAS A
PART OF AL QAEDA AT THE TIME OF
THE ALLEGED OFFENSE UNDER THIS
CHAPTER.
THE TERM HOSLITIES MEANS ANY
CONFLICT SUBJECT TO THE LAWS OF
WAR.
AS IT SAYS IN 948-H, MILITARY
COMMISSIONS THUNDER CHAPTER MAY
BE CONVENED BY THE SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE OR ANY OFFICER OR
OFFICIAL BY THE -- DESIGNATED
BY THE SECRETARY FOR THAT PURPOSE.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS
ELECD TO BRING SELF-CONFESSED
TERRORISTS TO NEW YORK CITY
I DIDN'T WANT TO WALK PEOPLE
THROUGH WHAT ITTAKES TO
PREPARE A CASE FOR TRIAL FROM A
JUDGE'S STANDPOINT FROM A
LOGISTICAL STANDPOINT.
ALL EVIDENCE WILL HAVE TO BE
TRANSPORTED BY DIFFERENT
INDIVIDUALS, WHOEVER MAY HAVE
IT, TO THE COURTHOUSE.
SO IT CAN BE USED AS EVIDENCE
THERE.
METIMES IT'S HELD IN
DIFFERENT PLACES.
BUT EVENTUALLY TO THE
COURTHOUSE.
NORMALLY YOU HAVE TO KEEP A
VERY CAREFUL CHAIN OF CUSTODY
ON ANY EVIDENCE.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY, THIS IS
A BATTLEFIELD WHERE IN ORDER TO
GET OFFICIAL CHAIN OF CUSTODY
STARTED, OUR SOLDIERS IN HARM'S
WAY WILL HAVE TO WALK OUT IN
THE MIDDLE OF HOSTILITIES,
BULLETS FLYING, SAYING TIME
OUT, I WANT TO GATHER EVIDENCE
THAT WE MAY NEED
IN A CIVILIAN COURT BECAUSE WE
HAVE A PRESIDENT OR ATTORNEY
GENERAL WHO WANTS ME TO GO O
IN HARM'S WAY AND GATHER
FINGERPRINT, D.N.A., FORENSIC
EVIDENCE, THAT MAY BE USED IN
ESTABLISHING -- AND ESTABLISH
CHAIN OF CUSTODY, NEVER MIND
THAT IT MAY GET ME KILLED
TRYING TO GATHER SUCH
FORENSICALLY ON A BATTLEFIELD
WHICH WE'VE NEVER DONE BEFORE,
IT'S NEVER BEEN NECESSARY,
BECAUSE PEOPLE WHO WERE LEADERS
IN THIS COUNTRY KNEW ENOUGH
ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THE
COUNTRY TO AVOID PUTTING OUR
MEN AND WOMEN AT
RISK.
IN ORDER TO TRY PEOPLE WHO
WANTED TO KILL US AND DESTROY
OUR WAY OF LIFE INTO A CIVIL
COURT A CIVILIAN
HADN'T BEEN DONE.
WAS NOT APPROPRIATE.
W THIS IS UNUSUAL WAR, OF
COURSE.
BECAUSE ALTHOUGH THE
INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE PLANNED,
PARTICIPATED IN KILLING
AMERICAN CITIZENS, THROUGH OUR
9/11 TERRORIST ATTACKS THEY
DECLARED WAR ON US, BUT WE
DIDN'T OFFICIALLY DECLARE WAR
ON THEM.
BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT ACTUALLY A
COUNTRY WHICH MAKES IT MORE
DIFFICULT.
MISTAKE, WAR HAS
BEEN DECLARED ON THE UNITED
STATES AND EITHER WE RESPOND BY
FIGHTING BACK IN THIS WAR OR
THE WAR WITH TERROR GOES ON
FROM THE TERRORISTS UNTIL THEY WIN.
IT BECOMES A VERY ONE-SIDED WAR.
UNTIL EVENTUALLY WE EITHER LOSE
THE COUNTRY OUT OF FEAR OR
TERROR OR THE AMERICAN CITIZENS
DECIDE GEE, THE RISK IS SO
GREAT, LET'S JUST MAKE OUR
PRESIDENT KING AND GO TO A
DICTATORSHIP BECAUSE SO OFTEN
IN HISTORY, PEOPLE PREFER A
DICTATORSHIP OR A KING OR A SEE
SAR, IF THEY CAN A-- OR A
CAESAR, IF THEY CAN ASSURE
THEY'LL BE BETTER PROTECT.
THAT IS WHY I DIDED, SINCE IT
DOESN'T APPEAR THAT THE
JUDGMENT HAD BEEN USED IN
WANTING TO BRING TERRORISTS WHO
SAID THEY PARTICIPATED AND
PLANNED THE 9/11 ATTACKS, THEY
JUST HOPE TO KILL A LOT MORE
THAN 3,000 PEOPLE AND PERHAPS
HAD HOPED TO KILL TENS OF
THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE IF THE
BUILDINGS HAD COLLAPSED SOONER,
IT SEEMED TO ME WE NEEDED TO
FIX THIS.
10 WE'RE WORKING ON THE
LANGUAGE, HOPE TO FILE IT
TOMORROW, NO LATER THAN
THURSDAY, THAT WILL MAKEHIS
MANDATORY, THAT ANY ALIEN
UNPRIVILEGED ENEMY BELLIGERENT
SHALL BE EXCLUSIVELY SUBJECT TO
TRIAL BY MILITARY COMMISSION AS
SET FORTH IN THIS CHAPTER.
WORDS ALONG THAT LINE SYSTEM OF
THAT IT IS NOT AN OPTION FOR
PEOPLE WHO DO NOT UNDERSTAND
THE RISKS TO WHICH THEY PUT
AMERICAN CITIZENS.
ONCE YOU GATHER THE EVIDENCE,
ONCE YOU HAVE THE TERRORISTS IN
NEW YORK CITY, I WOULD EXPECT
THAT'S PROBABLY STRATEGICALLY
WHEN THE DEFENSE ATTORNEYS
WOULD FILE A MOTION TO CHANGE
VENUE.
OF COURSE THE TERRORISTS MAY
WANT TO KEEP IT IN NEW YORK
CITY, EVEN THOUGH THEY MIGHT
ALLEGE THEY COULDN'T GET A FAIR
TRIAL BECAUSE PERHAPS EVERY
SINGLE PERSON IN NEW YORK CITY
ELIGIBLE FOR JURYUTY MIGHT
HAVE HEARD ABOUT 9/11 AND MAY
HAVE DRAWN OPINIONS ABOUT WHAT
HAPPENED THAT DAY, IT IS A
BETTER PLACE FOR TERRORISTS TO
REMAIN AND BE HELD AND DRAG OUT
A VERY LONG, SUSTAINED TRIAL.
BECAUSE AS YOU FIND, IF YOU'VE
BEEN AROUND THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM
IF A DEFENDANT HAS ACCESS TO
TREMENDOUS AMOUNTS OF MONEY,
YOU CAN EXPECT THEM TO CALL
EXPERT AFTER EXPERT AFTER
EXPERT A YES, FEDERAL JUDGES
CAN REIN IN THE NUMBER OF
EXPERT, BUT IF THEY'RE
-- CREATIVE ENOUGH THEY MAY BE
ABLE TO COME UP WITH ENOUGH
EXPERTS TO DRAG THIS THING OUT
AND OF COURSE WE HAVE THE RULES
IN FEDERAL COURT, STATE COURTS
AS WELL, THAT THE JUDGE HAS TO
BE THE GATE KEEP OVER WHAT
EXPERTS WILL BE ALLOWED TO
TESTIFY.
THEY HAVE TO BE FOUND TO BE
COMPETENT IN THE AREA TO WHICH
THEY'RE GOING TO TESTIFY: SO
THE JUDGE MAY HAVE WEEKS AND
WEEKS AND WEEKS OF HEARINGS ON
WHETHER AN EXPERT WILL BE
ALLOWED TO TESTIFY.
THERE MAY BE WEEKS AND WEEKS
AND WEEKS OF HEARINGS REGARDING
CHANGE OF VENUE EVIDENCE
WHETHER THE CASE SHOULD BE
TRANSFERRED AND IF SO, WHERE IT
COULD BE TRANSFERRED.
WHERE A FAIR TRIAL COULD BE
HAD.
AMAZING, BUT SOME OF THESE
THINGS, I DO NOT BELIEVE GOT
ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION BEFORE
ACTION WAS TAKEN.
SO WE HAVE T
GOING TO BE BROUGHT TO NEW
YORK, PERHAPS SOME TO ILLINOIS,
AS THEY'RE AWAITING TRIAL,
THING GETS DRAGGED OUT, PERHAPS
THE FRIENDS OF THE TERRORISTS
WE KNOW PEOPLE CAN GET INTO
THIS COUNTRY ILLEGALLY, WE KNOW
PEOPLE HAVE COME IN LEGALLY,
OVERSTAID THEIR VISAS, WE'RE
NOT ENFORCING VISA TERMINATIONS
ADEQUATE LEW.
THEY COULD HAVE FRIENDS HERE
ILLEGALLY, THEY COULD HAVE
PEOPLE HERE LEGALLY, BUT YOU
CAN BET, THEY'LL BE TESTING OUT
THE ADKAKA -- ADQUACY OF THE
COURT SYSTEM IN -- ADEQUACY OF
THE COURT SYSTEM IN WHICH THEIR
BUDDIES ARE BEING TRIED.
HAVING READ THE PLEADING BY
KHAL
THEY INTEND TO TERRORIZE US AND
DEFEAT US AND DESTROY US, THEIR
FRIENDS WILL BE LOOKING FOR A
WAY TO DO THAT.
WHAT BETTER WAY THAN IN THE
MOST DENSELY POPULATED AREA IN
THIS COUNTRY?
TO HAVE SOME TERRORIST THREATS
GO ON.
AND WHAT YOU NORMALLY HAVE WHEN
THE TERRORIST THREATS GO ON IS
EVACUATIONS.
AND THAT'S WHEN IT IS EXTREMELY
HELPFUL TO HAVE A
ORGANIZER IN THE WHITE HOUS
BECAUSE YOU'LL NEED LOTS OF
COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION IN ORDER
TO ADEQUATELY EVACUATE MASSIVE
AREAS OF THE MOST DENSELY
POPULATED AREA IN AMERICA.
AS THE THREATS WILL LIKELY BE
COMING.
SEEN IT HAPPEN IN MY OWN
COURTHOUSE, WHEN I WAS A JUDGE,
I NORMALLY
HAD THAT LUXURY SINCE I COULD
ORDER THE DEPUTIES TO LEAVE ME
ALONE.
BUT YOU'LL HAVE THOSE TYPE OF
THINGS.
N WE BE SURE THAT THERE WILL
NOT BE A TRUCK, A VEHICLE
LOADED WITH EXPLOSIVES THAT
PERHAPS COMMITS AN ACT OF
TERRORISM IN ONE OF THE
TUNNELS?
OR A VEHICLE, YOU CUFF A NUMBER
OF VEHICLES COMING THROUGH THE
TUNNEL, COMING ACROSS THE
BRIDGES, LOADED WITH
EXPLOSIVES, THINGS TO INSTILL
FEAR IN THE MINDS OF AMERICAN
CITIZENS.
BECAUSE APPARENTLY THESE
TERRORISTS ENJOY SEEING
AMERICANS FLEE IN FARE.
WE'VE HAD AN EVACUATION HERE A
COUPLE OF TIMES SINCE I'VE BEEN
IN CONGRESS.
MY BROTR CALLED AFTER THE
FIRST TIME IT HAPPENED SINCE
I'VE BEEN HERE AND HE SAID, I
DIDN'T SEE YOU RUNNING OUT OF
THE CAPITOL ON VIDEO AND I SAID,
PERHAPS THAT'S BECAUSE I WAS THE
LAST ONE OUT.
I WOULD RATHER BE KILLED BY A
TERRORIST THAN TO SEE -- THAN TO
HAVE THEM SEE LEGISLATORS
RUNNING IN FEAR BECAUSE THERE'S
SO TERRORIST THREAT TO THE
CAPITOL.
JUST TAKE ME OUT.
I KNOW WHERE I'M GOING WHEN THIS
LIFE IS OVER SO I'M NOT TERRIBLY
WORRIED ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS FROM
THEN ON.
SO BACK TO THE TRIAL.
THOSE KINDS OF ACTS, THOSE KINDS
OF THREATS, COULD NORMALLY BE
EXPECTED DURING THE COURSE OF A
TRIAL.
AND AS THE TRIAL GOES ON, YOU
THINK ABOUT THE JAILERS WHO ARE
MAINTAING WATCH ON THE
TERRORISTS IN NEW YORK CITY.
YOU THINK ABOUT THEIR FAMILIES,
MAYBE THEIR IMMEDIATE FAMILY,
THEIR WIFE, THEIR CHILDREN,
THEIR HUSBAND AND THEIR
CHILDREN.
YOU THINK ABOUT PERHAPS EVEN
THEIR MOTHER OR FATHER, SIBLINGS
.
WHO WILL BE SAFE BECAUSE YOU
KNOW AS MUCH RESEARCH AS WENT IN
SO CAREFULLY TO THE PLANNING AND
THE DESTRUCTION OF THE WORLD
TRADE CENTERS, THAT PLANNING
WILL LIKELY GO
TERRORIST ATTACK AND WHAT BETTER
TIME THAN WHEN TERRORISTS ARE ON
TRIAL IN NEW YORK BECAUSE TO
THEIR WARPED DISTORTED WAY OF
THINKING, WHAT A GREAT TIME TO
BE BLOWN UP WITH ALL THESE
INFIDELS SURROUNDING THEM IN NEW
YORK CIT
INFIDELS TO THEM, INNOCENTS WHO
DESERVE PROTECTION FROM THE REST OF US.
SO THEN AS YOU GET THROUGH THE
TRIAL, YOU HAVE NOT ONLY THE
JAILERS, YOU HAVE BAILIFFS, YOU
HAVE JAILERS THAT TRANSPORT
THEM, YET PEOPLE WORKING ON THE
VEHICLES THAT WILL TRANSPORT
THEM, YOU HAVE PEOPLE WORKING ON
PERHAPS AIR COVER AND WORKING ON
THE AIRCRAFT THAT WILL PROVIDE
AIR COVER IF ANY.
YOU HAVE PEOPLE WHO WILL BE IN
THOSE VEHICLES AND AIRCRAFTS.
YOU HAVE PEOPLE ALL ALONG THE
WAY AND EVERY SINGLE PERSON IS A
POTENTIAL LINK THAT MAY BE
EXPLOITED BY TERRORISTS, EITHER
OF THEIR FAMILIES OR OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS.
BECAUSE THESE INDIVIDUALS INTEND
TO SCARE US AND TO SHOW THAT WE
CAN DO THEM NO HARM BUT THEY CAN
SURE SCARE US.
SO WHAT BETTER OPPORTUNITY?
DURING THE COURSE OF THE TRIAL,
OF COURSE, IT'S A DAILY THING TO
TRANSPORT PRISONERS BACK AND
FORTH FROM THE COURTROOM.
YOU HAVE PEOPLE ALL OVER THE
COURTHOUSE, THEY MAY BE MORE
RESTRICTED DURING THE TRIAL BUT
THE REALLY DIFFICULT TO RESTRICT
THE ONGOING BUSINESS IN NEW YORK
CITY.
AND ESPECIALLY SINCE, AS I READ,
THEY INTEND TO HAVE THEM BROUGHT
IN MANHATTAN IN THE SOUTHERN
DISTRICT OF NEW YORK.
TO MANHATTAN ITSELF.
UNBELIEVABLE.
SO THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE
THAT ARE AT RISK.
INCLUDING THE PEOPLE IN NEW YORK
CITY.
AND IN CASE SOMEONE, MR.
SPEAKER, IS TPTED TO THINK,
WELL, YOU KNOW, THIS IS 2009,
THAT OCCURRED SEPTEMBER OF 2001,
I'M SURE THOSE PEOPLE HAVE
GOTTENVER THE PANIC, THE FEAR,
THE TRAUMA, THE TRAGEDY OF THAT
HORRIBLE DAY ON 9/11.
BUT YOU DON'T VE TO GO VERY
FAR BACK AND RECALL THE
INSENSITIVITY OF THIS
ADMINISTRATION IN HAVING AIR
FORCE ONE FLY OVER NEW YORK
ACCOMPANIED BY FIGHTER JETS
WHICH CAUSED A SHEER PANIC AS
SOME MAY HAVE SEEN ON YOUTUBE
AMONG CITIZENS IN NEW YORK
BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT, IT'S
HAPPENING AGAIN, AND THAT
FIGHTER MAY HAVE TO SHOOT DOWN
THE AIR FORCE ONE.
IT WAS UNBELIEVABLE
INSENSITIVITY AND AS SOME MAY
RECALL, AT LEAST ONE PERSON LOST
THEIR JOB OVER IT.
IT WON'T TAKE MUCH TO START THE
PANIC ALL OVER AGAIN.
THE INSENSITIVITY IS JUST
AMAZING.
JUST AMAZING.
AND SO WE'RE TOLD IN ADDITION
NOT ONLY SHOULD WE BRING THESE
TERRORISTS TO NEW YORK CITY, THE
MOST DENSELY POPULATED AREA IN
THE COUNTRY, BUT WE SHOULD KEEP
IN MIND THAT WE'RE ONE OF THE
LARGEST MUSLIM NATIONS IN THE
RLD.
THAT WE'RE NOT A CHRISTIAN
NATION.
BUT I CAN'T HELP
HALLOWED HALL, THIS INCREDIBLE
HISTORIC BUILDING, GO BACK TO
THE PAINTING OF GEORGE
WASHINGTON DOWN THE HALL AS HE
EXTENDED HIS RESIGNATION AND THE
END OF IT, OF THE RESIGNATION,
AFTER HE HAD WON
AS HE RESIGNED WHICH WAS
SOMETHING THAT HAD NEVER BEFORE
OR SINCE BEEN DONE IN THE
HISTORY OF MANKIND, LEAD A
REVOLUTIONARY MILITARY, WIN THE
REVOLUON AND THEN JUST GO HOME
AFTER YOU DID YOUR JOB.
WASHINGTON WAS AN EXTRAORDINARY MAN.
AT THE END OF HIS RESIGNATION HE
SAYS, I NOW MAKE IT MY HONEST
PRAYER, THAT'S RIGHT, PRAYER,
THAT GOD WOULD HAVE YOU AND THE
STATE OVER WHICH YOU PRESIDE IN HIS HOLY PROTECTION.
THAT HE WOULD INCLINE THE
OF THE CITIZENS TO CULTIVATE A
SPIRIT OF SBORD NATION,
OBEDIENCE TO GOVERNMENT, TO
ENTERTAIN A BROTHERLY AFFECTION
AND LOVE FOR ONE ANOTHER, FOR
THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS OF THE
UNITED STATES AND PARTICULARLY
FOR THEIR BRETHREN WHO IS HAVE SERVED IN THE FIELD WHICH IS
WHAT WE JUST DID ON VETERANS DAY.
THESE ARE WASHINGTON'S OWN WORDS
THAT HE WROTE IN HIS RESIGNATION
AT THE END.
AND FINALLY, DOES H GOD, WOULD
MOST GRACIOUSLY BE PLEASED TO
DISPOSE US ALL TO DO JUSTICETO
LOVE MERCY AND TO DEMEAN
OURSELVES WITH CHARITY AND
HUMILITY AND SPECIFIC TEMPER OF
MIND WHICH WERE THE
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DIVINE
AUTHOR OF OUR BLESSED RELIGION.
THAT'S WHO HE THOUGHT WAS THE
DIVINE AUTHOR OF OUR BLESSED
REASONABLE.
AND WITHOUT A NOBLE INVITATION
OF WHOSE EXAMPLE IN THESE THINGS
WE CANNEVER HOPE TO BE A HAPPY
NATION AND HE SIGNED THAT,
HONORED TO BE WITH GREAT RESPECT
AN ESTEEMED, YOUR EXCELLENCY'S
MOST HUMBLE SERVANT, GEORGE WASHINGTON.
NOW THAT WAS OUR FIRST
PRESIDENT.
THE FIRST COMMANDER IN CHIEF.
IS WORDS, THAT'S
WHAT HE THOUGHT.
HE THOUGHT WE HAD A DIVINE
AUTHOR OF OUR BLESSED RELIGION.
HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT OUR CURRENT
PRESIDENT KNOWS, APPARENTLY.
OUT HERE WE
RIGHT OUTSIDE, A MASSIVE
PAINTING,F THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.
AFTER NEARLY FIVE WEEKS OF
ACCOMPLISHING VIRTUALLY NOTHING,
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, 80 YEARS OLD,
ABOUT 2 1/2 YEARS AWAY FROM
MEETING HIS MAKER, BRILLIANT,
WITTY, CHARMING,
STOOD UP AND WAS RECOGNIZED --
RECOGNIZED AND HE SAID, WE'VE
BEEN GOING FOR NEARLY FIVE
WEEKS, WE HAVE MORE NOES THAN
AYES NOW.
HE SAID, IN THIS SITUATION OF
THIS ASSEMBLY, WE KNOW THESE ARE
HIS WORDS TAKEN BY JAMES
MADISON, GROPING AS WE WERE IN
THE DA TO FIND POLITICAL TRUTH
AND SCARCE ABLE TO DISTINGUISH
IT WHEN PRESENTED TO US, HOW HAS
IT HAPPENED, SIR, THAT WE HAVE
NOT HITTING THER TO ONCE THOUGHT
OF HUMBLY APPLYING TO THE FATHER
OF LIGHTS TO ELIMINATE
UNDERSTANDING?
AND TO BE IN CONTEST WITH GREAT
BRITAIN WHEN WE WERE SENSIBLE OF
DANGER, WE HAD DAILY PRAYER IN
THIS ROOM FOR THE DIVINE PROTECTION.
OUR PRAYERS, SIR, WERE HEARD AND
THEY WERE GRACIOUSLY ANSWERED.
ALL OF US WHO WERE ENGAGED IN
THE STRUGGLE MUST HAVE OBSERVED
FREQUENT INSTANCES OF A
SUPERINTENDING PROVIDENCE IN OUR
FAVOR.
TO THAT KIND OF PROVIDENCE WE
OWE THIS HAPPY OPPORTUNITY OF
CONSULTING IN PEACE ON THE MEANS
OF ESTABLISHING OUR FUTURE
NATIONAL FELICITY.
HAVE WE NOW FORGET THAN POWERFUL FRIEND?
OR DO WE IMAGINE THAT WE NO
LONGER NEED HIS ASSISTANCE?
SEE, THIS WAS DURING THE
FOUNDING, THE CREATION OF THE
CONSTITUTION.
THE FOUNDERS FELT LIKE IT WAS OK
TO PRAY TO GOD FOR DIVINE
PROTECTION AND THEY WERE NOT
WORRIED IF THAT INSULTED SOMEONE
BECAUSE IT'S WHAT THEY BELIEVED.
FRANIN GOES ON, HE SAID, ALL
OF US WHO WERE ENGAGED IN THE
STRUGGLE MUST HAVE OBSERVED
FREQUENT INSTANCES OF A PROVE
DENTS IN OUR FAVOR -- PROVE
AGAINST -- PROVIDENCE IN OUR FAVOR.
HE BELIEVED GOD WAS ANSWERING
OUR PRAYERS.
ANYWAY, HE GOES ON AND SAYS,
I'VE LIVED SO A LONG TIME AND
THE LONGER I LIVE THE MORE
CONVINCING PROOFS I SEE OF THIS
TRUTH.
GOD GOVERNS IN THE AFFAIRS OF MEN.
AND IF A SPELL CANNOT FALL TO
THE GROUND WITHOUT HIS NOTICE,
IS IT POSSIBLE THAT AN EMPIRE
COULD RISE WITHOUT HIS AID?
WE'VE BEEN ASSURED SO IN THE
SACRED WRITING THAT ACCEPT THE
LORD BUILD A HOUSE, THOUGH LABOR
IN VEIN THAT BUILD IT.
FIRMLY BELIEVE THIS, BENJAMIN
FRANKLIN SAID, HE WENT ON AND
SAID, I ALSO BELIEVE THAT
WITHOUT HIS CONCURRING AID WE
SHALL SUCCEED IN THIS POLITICAL
BUILDING NO BETTER THAN THE
BUILDERS OF BABBLE.
WE SHOULD BE DIVIDED BY -- BABEL.
WE SHOULD BE GUIDED BY LOCAL
INTERESTS, OUR PROJECTS WILL BE
CON FOUND AND WE OURSELVES WILL
BECOME A REPROACH AND A BIWORD
DOWN THROUGH THE AGES.
I THEREFORE BEG LEAVE TO MOVE
THAT IN IMPLORING THE ASSISTANCE
OF HEAVEN, IT WAS SECONDED
UNANIMOUSLY, ADOPTED FROM THAT
DAY TO THIS, WE DO NOT BEGIN IN
THIS CHAMBER OR PRIOR WHEN THE
CONGRESS MET IN OTHER CHAMBERS,
WE DON'T MEET WITHOUT STARTING
WITH PRAYER.
WITHOUT APOLOGIES.
YOU GO ON TO ABRAHAM LINCOLN,
ONE OF THE GREATEST THEOLOGICAL
DISCUSSIONS.
AND THIS CAME FROM A MAN WHO
BASICALLY WASN'T EDUCATED,
READ, SELF-TAUGHT, NEVER ASHESE
READER, BUT HE LOVED READING THE BIBLE.
HE BELIEVED IN GOD AS INDICATED
THROUGHOUT HIS WRITINGS AND AS
HE TRIED TO RECONCILE THE
HORRIBLE BLOODY CIVIL WAR THAT
HAD GONE ON, PROFOUND WORDS HE
WROTE, AS HE WRESTLED, YOU CAN
FEEL THE INTERCONFLICT IN
HIMSELF, WHEN HE TRIES TO
RECONCILE THE NORTH AND THE
SOUTH, FIGHTING, BROTHERS
AGAINST BROTHERS, FAMILY MEMBERS
AGAINST FAMILY MEMBERS.
HE SAID THESE WORDS, THEY'RE
INSCRIBED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF
THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL, LET'S READ
THE SAME BIBLE AND PRAY TO THE
SAME GOD AND EACH INVOKES HIS
AID AGAINST THE OTHER.
IT MAY SEEM STRANGE THAT ANY MAN
SHOULD ASK A JUST GOD'S
ASSISTANCE IN BRINGING THEIR
BREAD FROM THE SWEAT OF OUR
MEN'S FACES, BUT LET'S US JUDGE
NOT THAT WE BE JUDGED.
THE PRAYERS OF BOTH COULD NOT BE
ANSWERED.
THAT OF NEITHER HAS BEEN FULLY
ANSWERED.
THE ALMIGHTHAS HIS OWN
PURPOSES.
QUOTE, WOE UNTO THE WORLD
BECAUSE OF OFFENSES FOR IT IF IT
MUST NEEDS BE THAT OFFENSES COME
THAT WOE TO THAT MAN BY WHOM THE
OFFENSE COMETH.
UNQUOTE.
IF WE SHALL SUPPOSE, LINCOLN
SAID, THAT AMERICAN SLAVERY IS
ONE OF THOSE OFFENSES, WHICH IN
THE PROVIDENCE OF GOD MUST NEEDS
COME BUT WHICH HAVING CONTINUED
THROUGH THE POINT OF TIME, HE
NOW WILLS TO REMOVE AND HE GIVES
TO BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH THIS
TERRIBLE WAR AS THE WOE DUE TO
THOSE BY WHOM THE OFFENSE
COMETH, SHALL REDECERTAIN
THEREIN ANY DEPARTURE FROM THOSE
DIVINE ATTRIBUTES WHICH THE
BELIEVERS IN A LIVING GOD ALWAYS
ADESCRIBED TO HIM.
-- FINALLY A YOU SCRIBED TO HIM.
FERVENTLY DO WE PRAY THAT THIS
MIGHTY SCOURGE OF WAR MAY
SPEEDILY PASS AWAY.
LINCOLN CONTINUED, YET, IFOD
WILLS THAT IT CONTINUE UNTIL ALL
THE WEALTH PILED BY THE
BONDMAN'S 250 YEARS OF
UNREQUITED TOIL SHALL BE SUNK
AND UNTIL EVERY DROP OF BLOOD
DRAWN WITH THE LASH SHALL BE
PAID BY ANOTHER DRAWING WITH THE
SWORD AS WAS SAID 3,000 YEARS
AGO, SO STILL IT MUST BE SAID,
QUOTE, THOUGH JUDGMENTS OF THE
LORD ARE TRUE AND RIGHTEOUS
ALTOGETHER, UNQUOTE.
WITH MALICE TOWARD NONE WORK
CHARITY FOR ALL, WITH FIRMNESS
IN THE RIGHT GOD GIVES US TO
SEE THE LIGHT, LET US FINISH
THE WORK WE ARE IN TO BIND UP
THE NATION'S WOUNDS TO CARE FOR
HIM WHO SHALL HAVE BORNE THE
BATTLE AND TO CARE FOR HIS
WIDOW AND ORPHAN AND DO ALL
THAT WE CAN TO ACHIEVE A JUST
AND LASTING PEACE AMONG
OURSELVES AND WITH ALL NATIONS.
TO BIND UP THE NATION'S WOUNDS
DOES ANYONE THINK WE DO THAT BY
BRINGING TERRORISTS BACK TO
INSTILL MORE TERROR IN AN AREA
WHERE THE WOUNDS HAVE NOT YET
BEEN BOUND UP AND HAVE NOT YET
HEALED?
THERE'S A TERRIBLE MISTAKE
BEING MADE.
TERRIBLE MISTAKE BEING MADE.
AND IT MAY GAIN SOME KNOWING
NODS AND SMILES AT SO
INTERNATIONAL COCKTAIL PARTY
WHERE MEMBERS OF THIS
ADMINISTRATION MAY GO AND SAY,
SEE, WE BROUGHT TERRORISTS BACK
TO NEW YORK CITY, BACK TO THE
MOST DENSELY POPULATED AREA.
WE INFLICTED UPON OURSELVES
EVEN MORE TERROR.
AREN'T WE WONDERFUL?
SELF-FLADGELATION, AREN'T WE
GREAT -- SELF-FLADGELATION,
AREN'T WE GREAT?
DON'T YOU LOVE US?
WE'VE SEEN THERE'S NO
APPRECIATION IN THE WORLD WHEN
THE UNITED STATES HURTS ITSELF,
EITHER BY SPENDING TOO MUCH
MONEY, BY OPENING ITS DOORS TO
TERRORISTS WHO WANT TO DESTROY
OUR WAY OF LIFE
NOTHING ABOUT IT UNTIL IT'S TOO
LATE, WE'RE DEALING WITH THE
PATRIOT ACT AND I'VE HAD SEVERE
CONCERNS ABOUT
SECURITY LETTERS AND WE FOUND
OUT THEY WERE BEING ABUSED
UNDER DIRECTOR MUELLER'S
WATCHFUL EYE.
BUT IT NEEDS TO BE
RE-AUTHORIZED.
THERE NEEDS TO BE GREATER
OVERSIGHT THAN THERE WAS.
THERE HAVE BEEN CORRECTIONS
MADE.
BUT THERE ARE SOME PROTECTIONS
IN THAT ACT THAT HAVE AFFORDED
US THE ABILITY TO STAY
A MAJOR TERRORIST ATTACK FOR
EIGHT YEARS.
THIS IS NO TIME TO OPEN
OURSELVES UP TO ADDIT
TERROR, EITHER BY BRINGING
TERRORISTS ON OUR SOIL,
POTENTIALLY ALLOWING THEM TO GO
FREE ON OUR SOIL, POTENTIALLY
ALLOWING THEM TO ANYWHERE.
THEY DECLARED WAR,
TRADITION AND HISTORY OF
MANKIND IS, WHEN YOU'RE FROM A
GROUP THAT DECLARE WARS ON
ANOTHER PEOPLE, ANOTHER COUNTRY
AND YOU ARE CAPTURED, YOU
REMAIN CAPTURED, YOU REMAIN A
PRISONER, UNTIL SUCH TIME AS
YOUR FRIENDS CEASE THEIR WAR.
AND THERE IS NO INTENT TO CEASE
THE WAR ON BEHALF OF THE
YOU KNOW, THERE ARE THOSE WHO
THINK THAT THIS ADMINISTRATION
IS TRYING TO CREATE A SITUATION
WHERE THERE IS MORE DAMAGE AND
DESTRUCTION FINANCIALLY,
PERHAPS THROUGH TERRORISTS, SO
THEY HAVE TO DECLARE MARTIAL
LAW AND TAKEOVER -- AND TAKE
OVER, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT FOR
A MOMENT.
I JUST THINK THERE'S A TERRIBLE
LAPSE IN JUDGMENT THAT MAY
ALLOW THOSE THINGS TO HAPPEN.
BUT YOU GO BACK TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.
HE SAID, THE NATURAL PROGRESS
OF THINGS IS FOR LIBERTY TO
YIELD AND GOVERNMENT TO GAIN
GROUND.
YOU HAD JOHN ADAMS WHO SAID,
PROPERTY MUST BE SECURED OR
Y CANNOT EXIST.
WE HELPED SECURE PROPERTY WHEN
WE KEPT THE TERRORISTS WHO
WANTED TO DESTROY OUR WAY OF
LIFE OFF OF AMERICAN SOIL
OVER IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND
THEN IN THE LAST TWO OR THREE
YEARS AT GUANTANAMO BAY. OF COURSE, WASHINGTON SAID
GOVERNMENT IS NOT REA
IT IS NOT ELOQUENCE.
IT IS FORCE.
LIKE FIRE, IT IS A DANGEROUS
SERVANT AND A FEARFUL MASTER.
OF COURSE, ABRAHAM LINCOLN WENT
ON TO SAY, WE HAVE BEEN THE
RECIPIENTS OF THEY HAVE
CHOICEST BOUNTIES OF HEAVEN.
LINCOLN WENT ON, HE SAID, WE
HAVE GROWN IN NUMBERS, WEALTH,
AND POWER AS NO OTHER NATION.
LINCOLN FINISHED HIS COMMENT BY
SAYING, BUT WE HAVE FORGOTTEN
GOD.
WE ARE CREATING SELF-INFLICTED WOUNDS.
IT'S TIME TO STOP.
AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL HAVE ENOUGH
PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE
AISLE WHO WILL SIGN ON TO THIS
BIPARTISAN BILL, I'M HOPING IT
WILL BE VERY BIPARTISAN,
BECAUSE CONGRESS, AS I'VE
ALREADY READ, HAS THE
OBLIGATION TO SET UP ALL THE
COURTS INFERIOR TO THE SUPREME
COURT, TO SET OUT THEIR
JURISDICTIONS AND VENUE IN THE
COLLECTIVE WISDOM OF THIS
PLACE.
IF WE HAVE A CHIEF EXECUTIVE
WHO IS NOT AWARE OF THE KIND OF
DAMAGE AND DESTRUCTION THAT MAY
OCCUR BY BRINGING PEOPLE TO THE
MOST DENSELY POPULATED AREA IN
THE COUNTRY, IN WHICH TO T
THEM AND HAVE THEIR FRIENDS TRY
TO DESTROY THE TRIAL ITSELF,
THEN IT I THE DUTY OF THIS
BODY TO STEP UP AND SAY, HEY,
UNDER THE CONSTITUTION, THIS IS
OUR JOB.
WE'RE SUPPOSED TO CREATE THE
COURTS, SO YOU KNOW WHERE TO
TRY THEM.
WE'RE GOING TO ELIMINATE THE
CHOICE YOU NOW HAVE, YOU PUT
THEM IN THE RIGHT PLACE.
THAT'S WHAT SHOULD BE DONE.
THAT'S WT WE NEED TO PASS.
THAT'S WHAT CONGRESS WAS
SUPPOSED TO DO ACCORDING TO THE
CONSTITUTION.
BUT WE'VE ALREADY SEEN THIS
YEAR WHEN CONGRESS PUNTED AND
WHEN THE SUPREME COURT PUNTED
AND SO, UNELECTED, UNCONFIRMED
PEOPLE MEETING IN SECRET, AS
PART OF THE WHITE HOUSE,
DECIDED WHAT BUSINESSES WOULD
FALL IN THE AUTO BUSINESS.
WHAT WOULD GAIN.
THEY DESTROYED ALL THE YEARS OF
BANKRUPTCY LAW, ALL THE
INCREDIBLE WISDOM THAT CAME
TOGEER IN THE BANKRUPTCY LAW,
TURNED IT UPSIDE DOWN, SECURED
CREDITORS WERE TREATED LIKE
DIRT, UNSECURED CREDITORS WERE
CATAPULTED BECAUSE IT INVOLVED
UNIONS TO THE TOP.
TURNED THE LAW UPSIDE DOWN THAT
SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO STAND.
THE FOUNDERS WANTED US TO STEP
UP AND UTILIZE THE POWER THAT
THEY GAVE THIS BODY.
SO WE HAD DEALERSHIPS, SOME
PLACES THEY HAD BORROWED
MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO BUY THE
DEALERSHIP AND ALL OF A SUDDEN
SOME PEOPLE WHO DON'T EVEN OWN
CARS WERE SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT,
CLOSE THEIR DEALERSHIP.
MAY EVEN GIVE IT TO SOMEBODY
DOWN THE ROAD AND THOSE PEOPLE
ARE LEFT OWING THE
MONEY THEY BORROWED BECAUSE
SOME UNELECTED, CON CON
BUREAUCRAT SAID THIS IS AT
WE'RE GOING TO DO.
OF COURSE, THEY DID HAVE TO RUN
INTO A LAZY BANKRUPTCY COURT
JUDGE, MAYBE HE'S IN THE LAZY,
MAYBE HE'S JUST AMBITIOUS, WHO
WOULD SIGN OFF ON THAT AND GIVE
IT THE COLOR OF LAW.
SOME MAY NOT KNOW, BANKRUPTCY
JUDGES HAVE TO STAND FOR
REAPPOINTMENT.
AND MANY BANKRUPTCY JUDGES HOPE
THEY WILL INVOKE THE FAVOR OF A
PRESIDENT WHO WILL ELEVATE THEM
TO A FEDERAL DISTRICT BENCH FOR
LIFE RATHER THAN ON THE
BANKRUPTCY COURT.
AND THAT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE,
MANY, MANY TIMES.
BUT CONGRESS STOOD MUTE AND LET
THE CONSTITUTION BE TURNED
UPSIDE DOWN, LET THE LAWS THAT
THIS BODY PASSED BE TURNED
UPSIDE DOWN, THEN THE LAST HOPE
OF ALL THE CHECKS AND BALANCES
PUT IN PLACE BY FOUNDERS WAS
THE SUPREME COURT.
JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG, TO
HER CREDIT, PUT A 24-HOUR HOLD
TO THAT FEE ASCII, ABOMINATION
UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED
STATES AND THE CONSTITUTION.
BUT SHE WITHDREW IT, OR IT DIED
AT THE END OF THE 24 HOURS AND
ALL CHECKS AND BALANCES ON
POWER WERE AVOIDED.
AND WE DID EXACTLY WHAT THE
FOUNDERS HOPED WO
WE IGNORED THE POWER OF ALL THE
DIFFERENT BRANCHES SO TT ONE
UNELECTED, UNAPPOINTED GROUP
COULD JUST RUN THINGS AS THEY
WANTED.
WE CAN'T LET THAT TYPE OF
ACTION HAPPEN AGAIN HERE.
WE CREATED THE MILITARY
COMMISSIONS IN THIS CONGRESS
UNDER OUR AUTHORITY OF THE CONSTITUTI.
IT IS OUR OBLIGATION AS A
CONGRESS TO STEP IN AND PROTECT
THE PEOPLE OF NEW YORK
TERRORISM THAT WILL IN ALL
LIKELIHOOD FLOW AND IF YOU
DON'T BELIEVE IT, THEN GO READ
THE UNCLASSIFIED PLEADINGS
FILED BY KHALID SHEIKH MOHAMMED.
IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY
MEAN HARM, THEN YOU CAN CHECK
OUT THE ACCOUNTS OF WHAT GOES
ON AT GUANTANAMO.
WHAT WE HAVE SEEN, FOUND OUT,
IN TRIPS TO GUANTANAMO BAY
SHOWS THAT THESE GUYS ARE BEING
TREATED BETTER THAN PRISONERS
I'VE EVER SEEN IN STATE OR
FEDERAL PRISON IN TEXAS AND IN
OTHER FEDERAL PRISONS IN THE
COUNTRY.
MAXIMUM SECURITY PRISONS, THAT
IS.
THEY'RE FED WELL.
THEY GET SEVERAL HOURS A DAY
OUTSIDE.
THEY ARE GIVEN MOVIE HOURS
WATCH MOVIES.
AND IN FACT, ONE OF THE BIG
PROBLEMS AT GUANTANAMO IS NOT
FOR THE PRISONERS, BUT COMES
FROM THE PSONERS.
THEY'RE SO BRILLIANT AND
INNOVATIVE THEY FIGURE OUT WAYS
TO THROW URINE AND FECES ON OUR
GUARDS.
BUT THE STANDING ORDE
GUANTANAMO, AS TOLD BY THE
COMMANDER TO ME IS THAT -- THE
STANDING ORDER IS, WHOEVER HAS
URINE OR FECES THROWN ON THEM
FROM ONE OF THE INMATES MAY GO
AND SHOWER AND CHANGE AND TAKE
THE REST OF THE DAY OFF.
BUT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NOBODY HAS
TAKEN THE REST OF THE DAY OFF.
THEY GO SHOWER, CLEAN UP, AND
THEY COME BACK TO DUTY.
I WAS TOLD THAT THERE WAS ONE
SERVICE MEMBER WHO, ON HAVING
FECES THROWN ON HIM, ACTUALLY
LOST HIS TEMPER AND YELLED AT
THE INMATE AND FOR THAT, HE
RECEIVED AN ARTICLE 15
PUNISHMENT FOR LOSING HIS
TEMPER AFTER HE HAD BODY
EXCREMENT THROWN ON HIM.
WHEN I HAVE TRIED TO FIND OUT
IF THERE WASN'T SOME WAY TO
PUNISH THE PRISONERS WHO COMMIT
THOSE TYPE OF ASSAULTS ON OUR
GUARDS, I'M TOLD THAT BECAUSE
THERE ARE SO MANY INTERNATIONAL
VISITORS, INCLUDING RED CROSS
OR WHATEVER GROUPS COME,
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, THE
GROUPS THAT COME, THEY COME
N ENOUGH THAT THEY DID NOT
WANT -- THE PEOPLE AT
GUANTA
THESE GROUPS TO COME AND FIND
THEY'D PUT SOMEBODY IN SOLITARY
CONFINEMENT.
DESPITE THE PHYSICAL ASSAULTS.
SO THERE IS NO REAL PUNISHMENT
THAT IS INFLICTED UPO
THAT COMMIT ASSAULTS ON GUARDS.
BUT IN FACT, THEY MAY TAKE A
COUPLE OF THEIR FOUR HOURS OF
MOVIE WATCHING AWAY.
AND IF IT'S A BAD ENOUGH
ASSAULT ON ONE OF OUR GUARDS,
THEY MAY TAKE AWAY SOME OF
THEIR TIME OUTSIDE.
WHICH THE INMATES ENJOY, OF
COURSE, VERY MUCH.
THEY GET MORE OF THAN MOST ANY
PRISON I'VE BEEN TO.
MAXIMUM SE
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DEALING
WITH IN GUANTANAMO.
PEOPLE ARE WELL TAKEN CARE OF.
BUT THEY ARE DANGEROUS AND THEY
WANT TO DESTROY OUR WAY OF
LIFE.
UNTIL THEIR BUDDIES DECLARE THE
WAR IS OVER, WE OUGHT TO
CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN THEM AND
KEEP THEM LOCKED UP AWAY FROM
AMERICAN SOIL AND IF THE
ADMINISTRATION IS ABSOLUTELY
INTENT ON TRYING THEM BEFORE
THEIR BUDDIES CEASE THIS WAR
UPON AMERICA, THEN IT OUGHT TO
BE BEFORE A MILITARY COMMISSION
AS CONGRESS H CREATED IN 2006
AND AS HAS BEEN AMENDED EVEN
THIS YEAR BY -- AT THE REQUEST
OF THIS ADMINISTRATION.
THAT'S WHY I'M GOING TO BE
FILING A BILL AND ASKING, MR.
SPEAKER, COLLEAGUES ON BOTH
SIDES OF THE AISLE TO PLEASE
JOIN IN, LET'S PROTECT THE
FAMILIES OF VICTIMS OF 9/11 IN
NEW YORK FROM HAVING TO ENDURE
THIS INSUFFERABLE BLOW OF
HAVING SMOKING HAPPY TERRORISTS
COME TO NEW YORK AND GLOAT OVER
THE DESTRUCTION AND DEATH THEY
CAUSED THERE.
THEY DO NOT DESERVE TO GLOAT
OVER THE DEATHS AND DESTRUCTION
THEY BROUGHT TO NEW YORK CITY.
THEY DO NOT DESERVE TO GLOAT
OVER THE DESTRUCTION AND DEATH
IN WASHINGTON, D.C., THEY
DESERVE TO BE KEPT CONFINED FOR
THE REST OF THEIR NATURAL LIVES.
BUT AT LEAST UNTIL THEIR BUDDIES
SAY THEY'RE NO LONGER AT WAR AND
THEY ALL GIVE UP AND THEN WE CAN
HOUND OUR SWORDS INTO PLOW
SHEERS.
UNTIL THAT TIME, THIS BODY OWES
A DUTY TO THE AMERICAN CITIZENS
TO PROTECT IT,
ADMINISTRATION DOESN'T SUBJECT
IT T
SO WITH THAT, MR. SPEAKER, I
WILL YIELD BACK THE BALANCE OF
MY TIME.
THSPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: FOR
WHAT PURPOSE DOES THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS RISE?
MR. GOHMERT: MR. SPEAKER, IT
APPEARS THE BUSINESS IS DONE FOR THE DAY.
AND SO I WOULD MOVE THA
HERE NOW ADJOURN. THE SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE: THE
QUESTION IS ON THE MOTION TO
ADJOURN.
THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. THOSE OPPOSED, NO.
THE AYES HAVE IT MUCH THE MOTION
IS AGREED TO.
ACCORDINGLY THE HO