the speaker pro tempore: gausm guam. ms. bordallo: i yield to mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. andrews: i ask three minutes to revise and extend my reremarks. the speaker pro tempore: the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. andrews: i commend members on both sides for supporting this bill. i regret that the member who has just spoke has used this time to mischaracterize the bill we will have before us tomorrow. i would like to specify those characterizations. the gentleman said there will be medicare cuts. there will be no cuts to benefits for any medicare recipient. yes, there will be cuts in fraud, waste and abuse under medicare. senator coburn of the other body said 1/3 of medicare spending is fraud, waste and abuse.

heritage foundation says 10%. this bill takes between 5% and 6% of that fraud, waste and abuse. forward, the gentleman made note of veterans and tricare, veterans' health care under this congress has increased to the highest level in the history of the country and will not be affected in anyway. and i would challenge any one on the minority side to show me one word in these bills that justifies a different conclusion. one, tricare will not be affected in anyway. and i would offer a similar challenge. the gentleman said there will be massive tax increases. what he did not say is that tax increases to help pay for this bill are on families with an income of more than $250,000 of a year, the top 3%, 4% in the country. he said it will cost american jobs and be a job killer.

this is echoes of the words we heard in this chamber in 1993, when members of the other side said the clinton economic plan would be a job killer. the former chairman of the budget committee, our friend from ohio said at that time that if the plan worked, he would become a democrat. well, he didn't become a democrat, but the plan worked. it created 23 million new jobs after it was passed. so it's a speeshous claim of deficit reduction. some say the deficit reduction will go up. around here, we don't rely on hear say. we rely on the congressional budget office and here's what they said. they said the deficit will go down by $138 billion in the first 10 years and over $1.2 trillion in the next 10.

with all due respect, the men and women who serve this country in the cold war served honestly and always gave a fair accounting of what they do. when we hear these remarks on the floor, they are not an accurate representation of facts and they frankly do dishonor to this bill and this debate. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: madam speaker, at this time i'd like to yield to the gentleman from indiana, my friend and colleague, representative souder, four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. souder: i thank my colleague from colorado. apparently our ground rules here we praise the vets on saturday and punish them on sunday. that to my friend from new jersey that this afternoon we did a supposed fix for tricare because the senate bill basically, unless you're 65 and over, cripples tricare.

we did this mandated thing and that, of course, depends on -- i have -- i have four minutes so let me -- mr. andrews: ok. mr. souder: we did a band-aid this afternoon. now, the challenge is the debate tomorrow we will have separate votes on the senate bill and the senate bill is the problem here because it could become law so it doesn't matter what we're doing in the house right now. the question is, is veterans going to be covered? and the veterans that took raveg during the cold war -- as much as they appreciate a flag being raised, they'd rather have their tricare. so the fundamental question is if any member votes for the senate bill tomorrow in the rule, if we're not going to do this deem bill, instead do a vote on the separate bill, this will be a vote for the veterans. and where it says no harm for veterans or no job killing, i happen to represent the orthopedic capital in the world in warsaw, indiana.

they have -- getting a tax clobbering in this bill, particularly in the senate bill, in that tax clobbering includes half of the r&d. who uses hip replacements and elbows and shoulders more than anybody are our vets because particularly as we develop body armor that they're getting hit in those places where they used to die, they're now alive, and a big percentage of them are doing hip replacements. now r&d is critical, particularly as the 18 to 22-year-olds, those retired vets from the cold war era are looking at trying to get quality hip and joint replacements. and one of the questions is, if you reduce half the r&d only one of two things can happen. either future vets are not going to have as good of quality and advances like we've been having, or the jobs will go offshore to reduce the costs so they can do the r&d. there's really not a way that

this isn't going to affect vets. it's indirect. then, as we all know that veterans' health care in general just like medicare and medicaid paid for variable costs and a little bit of mixed cost, that the way the government runs through buildings is that we run through those in one year. we don't do amortization and depreciation. therefore, in health care costs, private pay funds most r&d and innovation. so if you're going to keep the quality of care you have in veterans, you may have your veterans hospital but the new drugs being invented, the new hips being invented, the new things that were there being paid by private care will be squeezed out of the market. the other thing that hurts veterans and these cold war vets that we are paying tribute to, as it goes through and addresses the -- even in second home sales. i have 100 lakes in one county and 100 lakes in another

county. these are often that retired vets has a mobile home. it's their second residence that we've airdropped tax in second residence, that it's going to punish many of them that were banking on them to either cash it out for their retirement or to maybe retire there, their second homes will get taxed. they didn't have the margins. the veterans didn't have the margins. we have whole lakes around a different veterans groups and age groups and people who are police and firemen. many of them are $20,000, $30,000, now valued at $100,000, $200,000, they are going to get hammered. and this is something they are used to in the veterans system and may not directly affect them. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. souder: can the gentleman yield one more minute? mr. lamborn: madam speaker, i'd yield one more minute to representative souder from indiana. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. souder: ping-pong back and forth in indiana, we're online

in this budget to get a new hospital in fort wayne, indiana. you know what this bill says, in the medicare reduction it says higher utilization of equipment. higher utilization of equipment is being interpreted and they are going to cardiologists, oncologists in our district saying 80% for utilization. what it means that everybody is going to get ping-ponged like the veterans are getting ping-ponged because only indianapolis in the state of indiana can reach 80% of utilization. so they're tell fort wayne, south bend, they are not going to have the oncology equipment, the heart equipment. and the veterans as they see their records are often lost, when their appointments are canceled, they have to pay their own gas, this will hurt the citizens. we praise them on saturday, we punish them on sunday. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from guam.

ms. bordallo: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to my friend and colleague whose also a member of the armed services committee, the gentleman from committee, mr. andrews. mr. andrews: i thank the gentlelady from -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: i thank the speaker. my friend from indiana, the previous speaker, is a very thoughtful and substantive member. i appreciate the good work that he does. i want to talk about the assertions he just made. one is that the senate bill, the base tax, hurts tricare. i wonder if he could explain to us exactly how that is, and i would be happy to yield him if he'd explain it to us. could anyone explain exactly how the senate bill hurts tricare? i'm just simply asking for an explanation of the statement. mr. souder: i don't have the -- i'm sorry, i don't have the details in front of me. i don't have the details. mr. andrews: ok.

let's talk about where the details are more obvious. i thank you. the gentleman talked about a couple that would buy a home for $30,000 and sell it for $200,000 having a $170,000 gain. under the proposal that the house will consider tomorrow, does the gentleman know what tax that couple would pay on that gain? if they had a $170,000 gain? mr. souder: it's based off the capital gains. right now most of them -- i had one person with a $40,000 house and the capital gains on that made the difference of his retirement on an annual basis. they have -- mr. andrews: ok. reclaiming my time. the example the gentleman used was a couple that bought a $30,000 house, sold it for $200,000, which means there's $170,000 gain. the tax would be zero. because the tax doesn't kick it until $250,000. every member is entitled to his own opinion but not every

member is entitled to his own set of facts. these assertions are false. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: thank you, madam speaker. and let me say in response to the gentleman from new jersey that it was a good step we took with the ike skelton bill today. it solved half the problem. we still have a remaining problem, and that is that it's not clear like it should be who has jurisdiction over defining beyond whether it's a minimum standard that tricare will satisfy, whether there will be additional imp significances and regulations put on -- impositions and regulations put on the health czar. think they should have no say whatsoever on tricare. mr. andrews: will the gentleman yield? mr. lamborn: in just a mohammed? we only went halfway. so it's still undefined who has

final control over imposing all the regulations. and i have veterans in my district, 100,000 of them, who feel that they have earned a right to have health care. and they don't have to be told they need a second policy, that somehow that's not good enough. and that's what the danger is mr. andrews: will the gentleman yield? mr. lamborn: because it hasn't been defined like it should be. mr. lamborn: madam speaker, you'll have a chance, i'm sure. i like to yield five minutes to the gentleman from tennessee, representative duncan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. duncan: i thank the gentleman for yielding, madam speaker. i rise in support of this resolution to honor our veterans who is it so much to preserve our freedom during the cold war. it is unfortunate that we are maybe about to pass a massive health care bill that will take away an important part of that freedom that those veterans worked so hard to preserve. madam speaker, robert samuelson, a very middle of the road economics columnist for

"the washington post" wrote a column this weekend called a cost control mirage. mr. samuelson said the health care plan we will vote on tomorrow, quote, evadse health care's major problems and would worsen the budget outlook. he added that, quote, it's a big new spending program when government hasn't paid for the spending programs it already has. every government health care program has far exceeded all cost expectations and has cost many times more than was predicted. medicare costs just $3 billion the first year after -- the first year it was created and $453 billion last year. it's unfunded -- its unfunded future liabilities is estimated at a whooping $38 trillion. medicaid is also out of control at both federal and state levels. last week the governor of arizona estimated that this new health care bill would cost her state alone $4 billion that they do not have when arizonans is already facing their biggest

deficit ever, over $3 billion. most states is the worse shape financially and according to the census burrow they would have to expand medicaid over 50% and 33 states would have to expand by more than 30%. the states simply cannot afford all of the megabillions that this bill makes them spend. our senior senator from tennessee said that they set out to reduce health care costs but that this bill, quote, will do the exact opposite. he said this bill, quote, will increase health insurance premiums, raise taxes, cut medicare and dump millions into medicaid. of course, the bill is so wrong, so complicated, so confusing that the speaker of the house was quoted as saying we would have to pass it to find out what is in it. and one of the senate democratic leaders said on the floor of the senate even he did not know all what was in it. now the congressional budget office has parently cooked the books and filed a very misleading report attempting to

show a cost less than $1 trillion. to do this among other budget gimmicks the c.b.o. was told to count phony savings such as over $400 billion from cutting doctors' payments by over 20% and never raising them back up again. this will never happen. another huge phony savings comes from cutting medicare. dr. david grassner wrote a column in "the new york daily news" said, it's that time again. washington is talking about cutting cuts to medicare. president obama's health care reforms depend upon them. up to $400 billion over 10 years. he wrote, i will break the news gently. medicare cuts is like santa claus and his flying reindeer, often talked about but never seen. "the weekly standard" magazine published an analysis two days ago. saying it is $2.5 trillion to $3 trillion, more than double or triple the c.b.o. estimate.

then there are the tax increases on everything from medical equipment producers to tanning bed operators to $210 billion in new medicare taxes. then, there are the fines of $695 for individuals or up to 2.5% of household income against people who do not buy insurance. and the employer mandate of $2,000 per employee if they do not provide insurance. the bill starts the tax increases immediately but 98% of the benefits do not take effect until 2014. two lawyers from one of the nation's most prominent law firms wrote a column for "the washington post" entitled "illegal house reform." david and lee wrote about -- wrote that this bill is without question unconstitutional. . i went to a reception and the

doctor who delivered me brought my records and he charged $60 months -- for nine months of terror. then we took what was a very minor problem for very few people and turned it into a massive major problem for everyone. anything the federal government subsidizes, the costs just explode. there are many things we can do to bring down the cost of health care, but this bill will cause costs to go up even more and getting the federal government into health care will lead to shortages, waiting periods and a decline in the quality of care all at greater costs. this bill in the long run will end up hurting most poor, middle income people. it should be defeated. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from guam has 11 minutes remaining. ms. bordallo: i yield two minutes to --

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado has five minutes remaining. ms. bordallo: i yield to my friend and colleague, mr. andrews, for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. andrews: another series of misrepresentations. we heard the congressional budget office quolet cooked the books, closed quote. i frankly think that is a great disservice to the men and women on a nonpartisan basis who give us their honest judgment. the minority doesn't like their judgment. the bill reduces the deficit. they attack the men and women, nonpartisan men and women. cuts to medicare, no medicare beneficiary gets any cut. there is an increase in prescription drug coverage, increase in preventive care. having said that, there is fraud, waste and abuse in medicare. senator coburn and heritage foundation thinks that.

the gentlemen on the other side must think that. last spring when the republicans put their alternative budget on the floor, it cut medicare outlays by $100 billion more than this bill does. it was in excess of $600 billion and that targeted some fraud, waste and abuse. to argue that these are cuts that are disingenuous. there are two cuts with respect to tricare. which office or department regulates. it is very clear it's the department of defense and should be the department of defense. mr. skelton wisely afffirmed that. i'm still waiting for someone on the other side to tell me what the other problem was you are tying to fix in tricare. i don't know what it was. there is an assertion made that the bill hurts people on tricare and i'm still waiting to hear what that was. and i would yield to anyone who can tell me.

>> the concern was for veterans that were under the age of 65 and have 20 years of service or more, that the health care bill statutes that were determining what was acceptable as a stand-alone insurance committee and what was not -- i ask unanimous consent for an additional minute. of ms. bordallo: i yield an additional two minutes. mr. tiahrt: i thank the gentleman. the folks on tricare under the age of 65 would get moved out of tricare into the government determined plan. mr. andrews: reclaiming my time, show me in the bill where it says that there is any possibility of that happening. the bill says exactly the opposite. it says under the terms of the individual mandate, someone who's covered by tricare satisfies the individual mandate.

the bill also says expressly, no one can be forced to join the exchange. no one can be forced to buy a particular insurance policy from anyone. not only does the bill lack the accusation that the minority makes, it expressly disclaims it. i think the public has a right to see where we stand on this. and tomorrow it will. but that right would be in the expectation that people read the bill and have an understanding. i don't think the minority has and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: i would like to yield to my friend and colleague from kansas, representative tiahrt, three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. tiahrt: madam speaker, i was just on the steps of the capitol speaking to a cold war veteran, who served his country admirably and served the fire department in the state of mississippi. he has driven from mississippi to washington, d.c. because he's concerned that the health care bill that's going to be passed

is going to increase the debt for his grandchildren and his children. he had many other list of concerns that he had but he was concerned about the debt. we know for a fact that since october 1, the beginning of this fiscal year, we have overspent by $655 billion. this is money we do not have that we have gone ahead and spent. we have borrowed this money and applied it to programs that i don't believe we need. he is concerned looking at this health care bill and the total cost outlays is $1.2 trillion, money that we don't have and so we have to borrow it from somewhere. and there is only six years of health care benefits that are going to be applied in the first 10 years and 10 years of higher taxes. so he's very concerned about the direction. if you go onto the next 10 years, $1.5 trillion we will

have to borrow on the health care bill we will vote on tomorrow. where is the money going to come from? the gentleman from new jersey was very concerned about us overlooking something that may or may not have been in the bill. concern that the chairman of the house armed services committee had, under the bill the way it's written in, they would be forced into the government exchange. it wasn't me that came up with that solution. i was aware of the problem. but the chairman of the house armed services committee, ike skelton, was concerned so we had the legislative change. what else is hidden in this bill? we have the bill, and yet we aren't going to know the entire contents as far as the american public is concerned about and what they will know. if you look at the senate bill that's going to be passed, fortunately it's not going to be deemed to be passed with a rule and that is a tremendous victory for the american people.

yesterday, the american people were upset that we were going to deem the senate bill passed. 50,000 people showed up to protest it. you couldn't call into our switch board. it was blocked because of all the calls coming in. tomorrow, we will get a separate vote on the senate bill. the people of america spoke out, they didn't want it deemed law. now they want us to vote against it. there are a whole bunch of people standing on the east side of the capitol and they are protesting the health care bill. what they're saying is kill the bill. they are chanting it over and over and over again. are we going to listen to what they're saying. what they know what's in the senate bill and reconciliation bill, they don't like. we hope to explain to them what's in the bill and hopefully they will encourage their members to vote against the bill. and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: i inquire of the minority if they have any additional speakers. mr. lamborn: how much time does this side have? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado has two minutes. mr. lamborn: there will be one more speaker. ms. bordallo: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from guam reserves. the gentleman from colorado. mr. lamborn: at this point, i yield top representative cassidy two minutes, the remaining time we have on our side. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. cassidy: my colleague made the point that some haven't read the bill. i read the bill. there is a loss of freedom. thousand -- thou shall buy

insurance policy or thou shall pay a penalty. if you will, the ultimate sacrifice of freedom, as one said, the power to tax is the power to destroy. clearly as we expand medicaid, we are going to ultimately shift taxes both to the federal taxpayer and state taxpayer. this will increase medicaid to 33% of the poverty level. that has tremendous implications. one is that physicians will be paid so poorly. i looked up in new jersey for example, medicaid pays 37% of medicaid rates to physicians to see the patient. 37%. now, as it turns out, that is below a physician's cost. physicians would like to see the patients. it's too low of a reimbursement. there was an article in the "new york times" and "new york times" held up an example of a woman

from michigan on medicaid who could not get treatment for her cancer because medicaid reimbursement was so low that she was unable to find a physician who could afford to treat her. i read the bill. if we think this bill is the way to provide insurance for the uninsured, i invite you to come to the public hospital where i have worked for 20 years where the patients i see are on medicaid and come to the public hospital because despite medicaid, they still cannot go to a private facility. in fact, i'm struck. for 20 years i have been seeing politicians in washington saying we now fixed health care. consistently, they have joffer promised and underfunded. i see what is coming down in this bill is the question of whether this time, this time, indeed it's different. where we aren't joffer promising and we are adequately funding. the reality it's going to be the same as it was in the past. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: i yield back and i ask my colleagues to support resolution 900. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back her time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 900 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative -- ms. bordallo: madam speaker, i request questions the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from guam seek recognition? ms. bordallo: madam speaker, i move to suspend the rules and agree to house resolution 1119

as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: resolution expressing the sense of the house of representatives that all people in the united states should participate in a moment of silence to reflect upon the service and sacrifice of members of the united states armed forces both at home and abroad. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from guam, ms. bordallo and the gentleman from colorado, mr. lamborn, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from guam. ms. bordallo: i yield myself such time as i might consume and i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the resolution under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentlewoman from guam is recognized. ms. bordallo: i rise in support of house resolution 1119 which honors the service and sacrifice of the members of the united states armed forces both at home and abroad. i would like to thank my colleague from mi