David Thomas: “Mr. Speaker, this is, once again, the kind of political move that belies the argument that people want to come to a…”

“Mr. Speaker, this is, once again, the kind of political move that belies the argument that people want to come to a successful conclusion on a Senate-passed bill and a House-passed bill. We would have no ability whatsoever to reconcile the differences between the bills if the Senate were to insist on its position and, in fact, the House voted, as this measure indicates they want us to vote, to lock ourselves into our position. Now, first of all, we know that motions to instruct are not binding; that Members do not have to follow the vote one way or the other. But it is a clear indication that somebody wants political game playing rather than a solution. Mr. Speaker, I stand prepared as a conferee, as I am sure all the other conferees are prepared, to sit down and, over some very difficult subject matter, come to mutual agreement so that, as the Constitution requires, bills that differ in passing the House and Senate can be reconciled, repassed by the House and Senate so the legislation can actually go to the President for his signature. If somebody wants a patient protection bill with solid standards and with the acceptable practices that several years ago we voted very noncontroversially in the Medicare provisions, like emergency rooms, like no-gag rules, like the other provisions that we have already passed, then this is exactly the wrong motion to offer.”