spokesperson glen beck, rush limbaugh and michelle. they are simply selfish and greedy and indifferent and they don't seem to care about helping anyone in need. i should note that when marcelis heard what these three said about him, he responded by saying, my mother always taught me that they can have their own opinion. it doesn't mean they're right. when an 11-year-old outshines and outclasses your party's three top mouthpieces, it might be time to look for some replacement. when i vote for health care are he form tomorrow i'll dedicate it to marcelis owens and the memory of his mom and if i had to write my seventh principle i think i'd use one of my favorite quotes from the book of james in the bible. quote, suppose a brother or a sister is in rags with not enough food for the day and one of you says, good luck to you, help your -- keep yourselves warm and have plenty to eat, but

does nothing to supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? so, with faith, if it does not lead to action it is in itself a lightless thing, end quote. that's what we are doing here. we are making the first step to return to the concept of the common good that we will take care of each other. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. jones of north carolina. for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, here we are on the verge of one of the most significant votes congress has ever taken. the only time i can think of which perhaps rivals the importance of this vote has been when we have had to decide to send our nation's finest,

young men and women, off into the perils of war. and yet, it is my mind-boggling, literally unconscionable, to think we are about to slap the american people in the face and have the audacity to say, we know better than you. in town meetings, at tea party rallies, from emails, faxes, letters, and literally millions of phone calls that have jammed the capitol switchboard, the voices of america have spoken out, begging, pleading work their elected representatives, please, slow down, start over, and do this the right way. sadly, instead of listening to the american people, the democrat majority, at least most of them, have chose ton tune the people out. to ignore the angst, fear, frustration, and anger, in hopes that somehow that will

all go away. let me assure you, it will not this whole process has been an insult. it's an outrage. it's an all-out attack on freedom and liberty, on fiscal responsibility, and on the sanctity of human life. on thursday afternoon, right after work, a man from my district left his wife and children, drove all night some 998 miles all the way from fairhope, alabamaing to be washington, d.c., just to go door to door to those members who were still on the fence, to encourage them to do the right thing. when i thanked him for making the trip he said, congressman bonner, i just couldn't sit back and look my children in the face and tell them, one day, years from now, i didn't do everything i could do to keep this from happening. earlier this morning, another man from mobil walked into my office -- from mobile walked into my office he stopped in knoxville, tennessee to pick up

his mom and together they came for the same reason. to thank those of us who were saying no and to reach out to every last undecided member of congress and beg them to listen to the american people. all day long, we've watched people come into our office, from towns in monroe and other counties in my district to folks from new jersey, all the way to the coast of california. all of them, literally thousands who descended on the hill today, came for the same reason to leave no stone unturned before the vote tomorrow afternoon. common sense tells us that with a bill this big and with so many last-minute deals that have been made, there are going to be a lot of angry people a lot more throughout the entire country, when all the details of this legislation are known in the coming weeks and months. isn't it ironic that just the other day, the speaker of the house told a group, we have to pass this bill to find out what's in it. well, earlier today, we found

out how true that promise was with the disclosure that democrats have now added a new $3 ppt -- a new 3.8% medicare surtax that will hit average, middle class taxpayers who have invested in real estate just what an already depressed real estate market needs. or the fact that just a couple of hours ago on this very floor, the house attempted to fix another problem we discovered in this bill. a provision that if left unchanged could have taken more than 9.5 million veterans out of tricare. once again, just another example of the dangers of passing legislation on the fly. while theout rage of the american people did help succeed in taking deem and pass off the table earlier this afternoon, we're still left with reconciliation. a process that leaves many americans dizzy in terms of the ever-changing rules that are being rewritten to try to pass this bill.

american people remember reconciliation. back in october of 2007, then-senator obama said of reconciliation, and i quote, we're not going to pass universal health care with a 50 plus one strategy and a couple of years earlier, then-senator biden said, i said to -- i say to my friends on the republican side, you may own the field right now but you won't own it forever. i pray to god when democrats take back control we won't make the same kind of power grab, you are doing. back home this might sound like double speak. sadly, in washington, it's just another day at the office. mr. speaker, while many people understandably are focusing on the vote that will take place tomorrow on the third sunday in march, trust me, the vote that will be take on the first tuesday in november is the vote that will allow the american people to have the last word. i yield back the gentleman's -- the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. defazio of oregon. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? >> to address the house for five minutes and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: i was on the floor just a moment ago, i was struck by the quote by thomas ed son, because as i've listened to -- edison, because as i've listened to more of my colleague, it seem thers driving themselves into failure and they just want to see this determined and committed number of members who represent constituencies across america driven into failure as well. but it says, many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up. so the stories we've heard about a young 11-year-old who has the common sense to know that maybe his mother would have lived had she had the right kind of coverage. to my good friend who was just

on the floor of the house and mentioned his constituents from his great state of alabama, i don't know if that constituent that drove 900-plus miles realizes that alabama has one insurance company, only one. no competition. and so when we think about where we are today on the eve of that magnificent vote, this is not arrogance. it is not an attempt to have the majority abuse the minority. it is to reflect on those americans who did not come, who in silence, suffer and die because they have no insurance. i support this legislation, but there are fixes i would like to have. i'm committed to working beyond the vote tomorrow. i don't like to see the comments that i've seen on signs. i respect it because i am someone who appreciates the

constitution. there is no instruction or demand on people to get insurance that is unconstitutional. in states, we require people to buy auto insurance, get seat buckles to wear helmets when they're driving on motorcycles. this is to save lives. we provide incentives to small businesses and subsidies. so today in the rules committee, i submit an amendment because i want to help a body of hospitals in rural and minority areas. my amendment had to do with what we call physician-owned hospitals. my first amendment was to preserve physician-owned facilities that have a greater average of medicaid in-patient admitances than state averages. a fix that's not illegal but one we want to fix as we move forward. my second amendment would prevent physician safety net

hospitals from closing and preserves critical care access for impoverished communities and the disabled. my third amendment, supported by the physician hospital association of america, would prevent the closure of 230 existing hospitals, save $2.9 billion in total payroll, $6.8 billion in federal taxes, and preserves 62,000 full and part-time jobs. the senate amendment, by striking all language that prohibits the grandfathered facilities from expanding. we've extended the time in which these hospitals can receive their medicare certificates which means more hospitals can come online. that's a good thing. that's why, understand, we are so close to success, i'm not going to allow failures to doe destroy that success for millions of americans. i do want to tell you about st. joseph's hospital in houston that was going to close until many ofous intervened. i said something like, over my

dead body would this hospital close and not serve our constituents. a group of doctors were able to invest and lo and behold, this hospital serves as one of the most income-challenged and a hospital that serb in the african-american community. physician ownership provides an avenue for it to stay open. or in south texas, an out of state corporation forced over 700,000 texans to travel more than 250 miles to receive life-saving medical procedures, decisions not to offer services by out of state conglomerates left patients with two offices -- two options, go without or transfer to another facility 250 miles away. a physician-owned hospital opened in south texas and stopped the drain of sick people having to drive 350 miles to get medical care or hospitalization. in chinatown's section of los angeles, the pacific alliance medical center is a 142-bed

hospital, has been the main hospital for 104 years. this facility was purchased by a group of physicians 20 years ago after existing hospital boards planned to close and demolish the facility. throwing a lifeline, that's what these facilities do. or in wisconsin, the aurora hospital he'ses seven centers of excellence and was the first in the country to become a designated emergency center. or a medical cent for the the state of washington, a large rural health system that helps serve patients in a largely rural area. there's a lot of good work that's already been done this bill has been reviewed over and over again. what my opponents say on the other side or the opponents of this bill this bill has been on the table for a long time. we know we can work going forward to make things better system of no amount of attacks, being spat on by those who have come here to this place to show their opposition or being called names is going to stop us from seeing success down the

road. but we want to work for these hospitals who are in rural and minority areas and poor areas to be able to stay open as well. i know that in working with my colleagues and moving to the other body, we'll have that opportunity. why don't my friends on the other side sit down and work as well so we can have what all of america is crying out for, those who are listening and understanding the issue that is health care for all americans. not socialized medicine. not a government takeover but the opportunity to see the good and the value of good health care for this great country of ours. i want to see kess is. i'm not going to allow failure to get in the way of success. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expire plsmed moran of kansas. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? >> to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. franks: this government takeover has been debated on so many fronts. the president says it's to save money yet in every corner of

the planet, every corridor of history, socialized medicine has always cost more, not less. every government health care program in the united states has ever implemented has cost many times the amount first predicted system of if this bill saves money, mr. speaker, it will be the first in human history. democrat leaders say that the government takeover will increase the quality of health care. and yet once again, mr. speaker, every example in history speaks to the contrary. those living under socialized medicine across this planet can only dream of living in a free market economy like america because they know that if they have a cold in their country they can call a doctor, but if they have something serious like cancer or diabetes or heart disease, they better call a travel agent and come to america if they possibly can. democrat leaders say that this will make health care more accessible to the people. and yet we have testimonies from doctors themselves that say that anywhere from 20% to

50% of them say they will quit the practice of -- practice of medicine if this health care monstrosity passes. it will be the poorest of the poor, mr. speaker, who will fall off the table when the scarcity of health care resources comes. so much for accessibility. but the big one, mr. speaker, liberals say that this bill is about compassion. to those who can't afford health care. but it is such a false argument, mr. speaker, because there are so many ways we could help those who don't have health care insurance without destroying the best health care system in the entire world. one of those would be to wipe out frivolous lawsuits, the savings of which would pay for a cadillac health insurance policy for every last one of the 11 million americans who say they want health insurance but can't afford it. to say this is about compassion, mr. speaker, when democrat liberals are doggedly determined to prevent any amendment that would be included to stop the taxpayer-funded murder of little unborn children is the

most insidious distortion of all. mr. speaker, nothing so completely destroys the notion that this bill is about compassion than the arrogant and cruel disenfranchisement of helpless, unborn children who have no voice in this twisted and corrupt process. no, mr. speaker, this is not about compassion, this bill is about power, it's about robbing the american citizens of power and putting it in the hands of left wing liberal bure cats and elitists who know thi they know more about running people's lives than the people themselves do. it's about robbing america of one of its greatest distinct ivers, the freedom of the individual. if left-wing democrats in this chamber arrogantly disregard the voice of the american people and shove this socialist obscenity down the people's throat, the people themselveses are going to shove it somewhere else in the next election. but there are members who will support this bill anyway because they're willing to

sacrifice freedom in the interest of a political advantage some free lunch to them in some capacity. to them, i repeat the words of samuel adams in the time when there was another great struggle in america over whether the power of government or the rights of the people would prevail. during the early days of the revolution when america was about to be born, samuel adams admonished those who would give up freedom, and i repeat this admonition to those who would still intend to vote for this bill he said if you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude more than the animating contest of freedom, then go home from us in peace. we seek not your counsel nor your arms. crouch down and lick the hands that feed you. may your chains sit lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen. mr. speaker, i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. ms. kaptur of ohio.

for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> request to take the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. ryan: i wanted to come to this floor about hearing bp experiencing and reading some reports about what happened today in the nation's capital to some of the finest servants this institution has ever seen by these tea bagger protests hob -- who have been out today. one thing to have disagreements on policy and political philosophy and the role more or less of government and what the government role and responsibility may be, but today, we had several members of congress, as they were walking from chamber back to their office, get spit upon, get called derogatory racial

remarks, derogatory remarks about a member of congress's sexual ownertation. that is unacceptable. and i'm calling upon, mr. speaker, that the republicans who spoke at this tea party today and who have supported this movement, to come out and condemn this tea party. this behavior is irresponsible. it does not belong in a civilized society. it chose that many people in this country want to divide this country, want to seek out our differences and not what units us. it's a shame. one of those members was john lewis, one of the greatest civil rights leaders this country has ever seen. and let me say this, in closing, that baseball bats and dogs and fire hoses didn't stop john lewis.

and spitting on members and calling them names is not going to stop the progress of this bill. have your disagreements about our philosophy. but let's conduct ourselves in a responsible way, not spitting on members of congress. disagree with them. give them your ideas. calling them names? one of the greatest civil rights leaders in the history of the united states of america has to walk from the house chamber to his office and get worried about getting spit upon, getting called the n word. the republican party need to distance themselves from this kind of behavior. it is irresponsible and diminishes this office and diminishes this country. and we call on the republicans to say shame on the tea party for that type of behavior. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. posey of florida. ms. fallin of oklahoma.

mr. rogers of michigan. mr. duncan of tennessee. mr. goodlatte of virginia. mr. cassidy of louisiana. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for 60 garamendi, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. garamendi: i thank you, mr. speaker. and i request that we enter into a colloquy with our colleagues from the democratic side.

earlier today, i had the opportunity to exit the chamber and go out to the veranda overlooking the east lawn of the capitol and there were a couple thousand folks out there protesting this legislation. and in their chanting, they were saying kill obama bill. i suspect they are referring to the health care bill and not to the president. and i was thinking about what does it mean to kill the bill? what's the effect ever killing this legislation and letting time go on with the current situation in the united states? this is what's happening in the united states today. 45,000 americans die each year because they are uninsured. they lack health insurance. 45,000. that's about twice the number

that are found in any of the arenas today as the march madness continues. 45,000. but that's not the end of it. we start with 45,000 americans. we ranked 19th in the world in the health of our citizenry. our children die earlier. all americans die earlier than the other 18 industrialized countries. the rate of increase in the health care market for the individual market, in california and in many other states, was nearly 100% within a one-year

period. an unaffordable rate increase. in california, the average number of claims denied by the insurance companies was 21%. and the range was from 39% to 17%. you talk about a death panel. here's where the real death panel. it's in the insurance companies themselves denying benefits, denying claims, denying treatment. that's for illnesses and that causes death. this has to end. and on sunday, we will bring this kind of unacceptable situation to an end. on sunday, we will pass affordable, available health care for america. i would like to call upon my

colleague from new york, mr. tonko. mr. tonko: thank you, representative garamendi. it is important for us to recognize what you are suggesting, the benefits we are bringing from this reform for americans across this great country. now the chants that we heard today was about concern about taking away freedoms. i would suggest that as we look at the dynamics of this legislation, we're going to see great improvement, great improvements to access to affordability and to the quality of care, all of which are indeed important to our families, our individuals and certainly to our businesses, as they continue to struggle with the costs of health care insurance. as we think of these dynamics, it's important to note, i look at the benefits personalized to

my congressional district in upstate new york in the capital region and amongst those benefits is an improvement, where 1,100 to 1,200 families will be spared the pain of bankruptcy. when you think of the growing dynamic that health care costs have as they relate to bankruptcy, it's staggering. it's staggering. 1,100 to 1,200 families will be saved from the ravages of bankruptcy driven by medical costs, health care costs. i'm reminded with recent data that 62% of bankruptcy in this country are caused by ex oshtant medical fees, health care that is not covered, even though, in some cases, people are insured. in fact, i'm reminded that of

that 62%, 78% had insurance when they were impacted by this illness, by the catastrophic situation. that tells us something. so we want to talk about freedom. yes, i want to talk about the freedom from bankruptcy, the freedom from claims being denied by insurance companies when you are insured. and as you indicated, representative, in your home state of california, the number is staggering. i want to promote freedom, freedom from the greed of insurance executives who say the sky's the limit for compensation and the profit column rules the day. these are the freedoms that we believe are important to the american public, freedom from bankruptcy, freedom from denied claims, freedom from ever rising

costs, premiums that are escalating beyond belief, freedom from greed, that's what we're talking about here. and tomorrow, will be a historic day as we look to change that situation and to strengthen the fabric of our american families and our business community as we continue with this employer-based health care delivery system that will allow us to go forward with the sense of access, affordability and quality of care. and thank you for bringing us together this evening, representative garamendi. mr. garamendi: mr. tonko, thank you very much. you raise the issue of insurance companies and how they act in the marketplace. i was insurance commissioner in california from 2003-2007 and tell you horror stories of what the insurance companies do. i will say this. when the president signs the bills tomorrow, the era of the

insurance companies discriminating against americans because they have a pre-existing condition, it's over, folks. no longer will the insurance companies be able to say to you, no, i will not give you insurance because you had acne when you were a child or because you may have taken some asthma medicine early in your life or you have any of the four pages of pre-existing conditions. the insurance companies will end their discrimination because the law will make it i will legal for them to do so. and the issue of bankruptcy. the policies that will be available through the networks will provide by law that there is no longer lifetime maximum payments. so that the bankruptcy that you specifically spoke to will no longer be existing.

the maximum limitations that the lifetime limitations that the insurance companies have used for years will be over. and shortly, the annual limitations will be over and the benefit packages will be full because there will be national standards for benefits, the kind of cheap, useless policies that plague americans when they can't afford a policy, they seek something that ultimately will not provide them with the care they need. that is one of the major reforms. this is an insurance reform of extraordinary importance. let me call upon our colleague from texas and i yield to the colleague from texas. ms. jackson lee: let me thank the distinguished the gentleman from california and thank him for both the background that he brings to the united states congress as an insurance commissioner for his state and distinguished the gentleman from new york made valid points.

we have lived with this for now almost 10 years. i remember trying to reform the bankruptcy code to protect people from things like alimony payments or women being denied the ability to receive alimony payments because credit card companies wanted to stand in front of the alimony payments and take first line. so we have seen people being destroyed by a number of ways. and we do know that by catastrophic illnesses. they are destroyed. i want to focus on two or three points. one the big sign of 45 thousand americans dying every year. we should not be so insensitive to life that 45,000 people dying does not impact our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. we have been saying this over and over again. 45,000 people. that means someone is dying as

we speak because they did not have health insurance or that they were denied. i want to remind our colleagues of some horrible stories. i remember that of a young girl who had leukemia and it was on national television. and i remember -- i think the company was cigna where the family went to the insurance company and begged for this young girl to be able to have this very special blood procedure. and they were turned away and turned away and turned away until finally public embarrassment, the news media and the family went again. the tragedy is when the company approved the right of this young girl, 11 years old, it was too late. the doctors could not perform the procedure. and so we have seen any number of instances where because of lack of insurance, lack of insurance, we have not been able to save a life.

what about the recommendation of goldman sachs that said just a week ago, if you want to make a buck, the best place to put your money is the nation's insurers. you'll never have to worry about them going out of business, you'll never have to worry about them trying to save you any dollars and you'll always know and count on them raising the premiums over and over again, what did they say, 94% -- premiums are raised. a family of four will see their premiums go up $2,000 to $3,000 a year. mr. garamendi: it's interesting to observe the effect of that. this is blue cross of california. two years ago, their profit was almost $300 million. the effect of the first rate increase, not the second one, but the first, around 50%, was to increase their profits to $2.3 billion. now they want to add another 30% or -- about 30% average on

top of that what will their profits be after all of that? it's shameful. what the legislation does is to rein in the excessive increases in the insurance company's premiums. it does that by requiring that a higher percentage of their premium go to medical services. you want to go check wall street, go on charles schwab, check the wall street thing, if you want to make an investigation. , they will say invest in -- make an investment, they'll say invest in companies whose cost is low and trend do you think ward. that means they're paying less for medical care and for more on profit. we're going to force the insurance companies pay for medical services. ms. jackson lee: may i make one final point? the final point is, what this bill will do as well is provide competition. i mentioned, a good friend came on the floor and talked about a

state where there's only one company my state, a big state, soon to gain in population through the census, three. 10 this bill once it passes will open up the doors of choice for those who have insurance or those employer-based insurance, because we're not taking away employer-based insurance. i think we're moving in the right direction. i hope that this story will be told tomorrow in the right way. i yield back to the gentleman. mr. garamendi: i appreciate that. we should remember that in that competition model, we'll create exchanges in which insurance companies will be -- they'll have to come pete -- compete and they'll compete in a standard policy. let me call on our colleague from ohio, mr. ryan. mr. ryan: i appreciate the gentleman from california and our other colleagues here. i've got a nephew at home who is like 3 years old, i think. his new thing, kids have different little sayings they have, his new thing is that if

you ask him, why are you going in this room? he'll say, i'm going in here, x, y, or z, that's why. he finishes all his sentences with that's why. i was thinking about this debate, people say why are you supporting this piece of legislation. well, because people can -- kids can stay on their parent's insurance until they're 26 years old. that's why. you know. we've got kids that are get degreenied because they have a pre-existing condition, the insurance company says, we won't cover you. i'm supporting this bill because that's going to change. the other provisions that you're highlighting here, tax credits for small businesses, up to 35%, actually in some instances, 50% of a tax credit for our small businesses for people who are providing tax relief to small business men

and women who are providing health insurance. that's why i'm supporting this bill. you look at if you get sick, and you try to get coverage and all of a sudden the insurance industry, insurance company says we can't cover you anymore. that's going to be done with. think about the significant investments, these significant protections we are making as a country. i love the idea of all the tea baggers that were down here today talking about these concepts of liberty. i would ask them today, tell me what do you mean? what liberty are we taking from you? let me compare it to the person in my district, the 17 -- the 1,700 families last year in think district who went bankrupt. are they free in they are not free. they are trapped in an economic system that buries them. because someone in their family got sick. my goodness gracious.

what is -- what did our founding fathers mean when they gave us these ideas of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness? who can pursue happiness when they're bankrupt because of nothing that they did more than bad financing, it was bad luck. and if we don't start to recognize in america that some people in our country just have bad luck, and if the government doesn't step in and push back the insurance industry to say, we're going to carve out, we're going to box out the insurance industry, so this freedom will have some freedom have some protections, that's what this is about. i've got no interest in stymying business growth. i come from youngstown, ohio, for god's sake. we've been in rae session for 30 years. you think i have an interest in stymying business development? i want to help it. they tried their side. i say to my friends. i was here. i'm not that old but i've been

here eight years now. i sat here and i watched while bush jammed through his tax policy, cut taxers in rich, they said, this is going to trickle down and help the poor. it didn't help anybody. but the rich. i sat here and watched while he passed a prescription drug bill, didn't negotiate prices, didn't do anything, didn't pay for it, borrowed the money, started wars, didn't have money for the wars that he started. i sat here and watched while the republican rubber-stamp congress rubber stamped all those policies. the economy didn't improve, wages didn't go up. they had control of every single thing. they had a chance to implement their health care strategy. it didn't work because they didn't do anything. they had a chance to implement their energy strategy and when gas goes to $4 again this summer, we'll feel it again. this is significant stuff we're talking about and democrats are

stepping up to bat for the american people. we are taking on the insurance tri-. i yield back. mr. garamendi: we've discussed here the issue of bankruptcy. i got a call from my daughter this afternoon and she said, dad, thank god i'm a nurse and i have insurance. matteo's arm, which was broken and required surgery, will probably be a $70,000 event. if i didn't have insurance, we would have lost the house. that's the situation faced for every family. thankfully not the situation my daughter and grandson faced but it is faced by hundreds, indeed, tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of americans. and it's right here. the insurance companies dominate these markets. lifetime benefits. she would have -- she probably has already run through her lifetime benefit.

that child is probably going to be uninsurable because he has a pre-existing condition, a bad -- a badly broken arm. those days are over. i'd like now to yield to my colleague from california, a magnificent representative with whom i've worked with for more than 34 years, she was a california state senator, took over my position when i left the chairmanship of the california state senate health and welfare committee. representative watson. ms. watson: i just want to say to my colleague an those here on the floor this evening, i am so proud to share this space in this chamber with the likes of you. and particularly you, congressman garamendi. and he was correct in saying that, yes, when he -- when i got into the senate, he

relinquished his committee and i held it for 17 years. and i think he probably is aware of my feelings at this moment. i have viewed the ugliness of today, congressman garamendi. that is so reminiscent of what i went through when i was on the school board in the 1970's and we had to integrate our schools. and i was the only person there who was an african-american. and i had to endure the slurs that were heard, it was absolutely ugly. the use of the n-word, spitting, the ranting the distortions, the slurs. and the deceitful references to our health care reform and i felt it was despicable. i didn't think it could happen

again here in america. but i'm reminded that hate continues. why should there be ranting and raving when we are trying to cover the 38 million americans without health care insurance? and eight million are in our state california. and six million of them are children. and i want to say that the legislation that we are addressing will make health care affordable for the middle class. i don't know how many people out there ranting were middle class. but this definitely will help them. it will provide security for our seniors and guarantee access to health insurance for the uninsured. and i just want to very quickly

mention what it will do for the 33rd congressional district, that is my district in los angeles, culver city, california. it will improve coverage for 304,000 residents within health insurance, it will give tax credits and other assistance to up to 173,000 families, and 15,100 small businesses to help them afford coverage. it will improve, improve medicare for 75,000 beneficiaries, including closing that doughnut hole. it will extend coverage to 132,000 uninsured residents.

it will guarantee that 22,200 residents with pre-existing conditions can obtain coverage and certainly their children, starting when the bills are signed into law. it will protect 1,100 families from bankruptcy. due to unaffordable health care costs. it will allow 66,000 young adults to obtain coverage on their parents' forms until they're 26 years old. isn't that exciting? it will provide millions of dollars in new funding for five community health clinics in my district alone. and it will reduce the cost of uncompensated care for hospitals and other health care

providers by $16 million annually. and i want to set the record straight. this will add and protect and supplement, not take anything away. . mr. garamendi: thank you so much . i'm appalled and personally offended and i think all owe an apology to those representatives who would demean, who were spat upon, who were cursed and were called the uglyiest of -- ugliest of names, it is totally unacceptable. mr. tonko: i couldn't agree more. and i think representative

watson says it well. there's all the call for civil discussion, exchange of information to do things substantively when it comes to a huge industry that represents one of every $6 in this country and do it in a way that brings together the facts, not to deal with fix and emotion obviously is part of this discussion. we heard it from our friend, representative ryan. we are emotionalized, but let's have the dialogue that builds soundness into the reforms that we need as a nation. and i think when we get back on to this message of freedom, the freedom to shop, many of us understand there is a capitalist model out there. people understand there is good to be successful and where we can contain costs and allow for growth of that business so more jobs are part of that picture,

all the better. and so we have the opportunity with these exchanges developed by this reform legislation to allow for the freedom to shop, to find a better bargain for health care. and to as previous speakers have said, add more people into the mix, more providers into the mix that want to fight for the right to serve you. that is a strengthener and where we require exchanges to have certain rules to be met, to have regulatory aspects. we saw what happened when there was no regulation in part of the financial world and banking community, it brought us to our knees in the recession. we need that sort of regulatory aspect and it's part of the picture. the amount of money going back directly into health care to consumers, to those insured, rather than into the profit column, will be a litmus test in

order to offer your services in that exchange. and to live with the standards, minimum benefits package, these are the improvements that we bring. again, to representative ryan's emotion and i aattach myself to that sentiment, we are promoting freedom to shop here and promoting freedom from bankruptcy. these are the essentials of this bill and the exchanges will sharpen the pencil and drive the bottom-line benefits to consumers and the freedom to escape freedom from restriction and women who are of child-bearing years and those who have been violated through domestic violence, to use that as a standard to deny you insurance coverage, that's the freedom you need to escape those biases and that prejudice and that tool that allows the

industry to grow more process produce because it won't insure you, these are the freedoms we are encouraging and freedoms we are guaranteeing. i am proud to work with you to make certain we share with the american public what is really happening with this measure and we're going to make history by approving this package. mr. garamendi: representative tonko and representative ryan, both of you have spoken to the american economy and the effect that 30 years of recession has had on youngstown. one of the fundamental problems in the american economy is the extraordinary growth in the health care sector. this little chart here really explains why many parts of the american economy are not competitive. this little red line here is the growth in the percentage of the wealth of this nation, the g.d.p., that is now in health

care. we heard earlier, 1/6. about 17%. a little more than 16% now of the total wealth of the nation is tied up in health care. we're growing faster in this sector than any other sector of the american economy. our competitors around the world are down here in the 10%, 11% range. president clinton, in explaining this in a speech he he gave in california, indicated that this gap here between the 16%, 17% of the american economy that goes into health care versus the 10%, 11% is like giving an $800 billion a year gift to our competitors around the world. and so when the industries and the manufacturing belt of america go out, the car industry, auto industry, other heff industries go out to

compete, they're saddled with this extraordinary additional cost because of the growth in health care sector and the fact is, the more inflation in the health care sector, the fewer people are insured. and this is why we're seeing small businesses shedding health care, why we see the extraordinary runup of the uninsured as the economy goes down. it's not just losing your job. it's the small businesses being unable to purchase health care. and one of the most important things that's going to happen in this legislation for small businesses is a specific tax reduction, a credit of up to 35% in year one and then rising up to 50% for every employee that they provide health care for. so it's an enormous benefit and incentive tom provide the insurance, to maintain the insurance.

and that's what's going to go on in the years ahead. all of the talk about this bill being bad for business, it's not true. this is what is bad for business. there is serious cost containment in this legislation for a variety of ways. i see, mr. ryan, that you are anxious to jump into this piece of the debate, and i yield to you. mr. ryan: it's interesting, because i was listening to my friend from new york and gentlelady from california. i can't get over what all the fuss is about against this bill. i mean this is something that bob dole and senator chafee had worked out in the 1980's. this is middle of the road stuff. many of us wanted other things in here. there's no public option in here. this is not single payer. this is right down the middle. this is bread and butter, all-american, apple pie and chevrolet. i mean, this is it. this is baseball.

look at it. tax cuts for small businesses. we have many people in our district make $50,000 a year. under this proposal, a family of four, making $50,000 a year in niles, ohio, will get $5,800 worth of a tax credit. that is a middle-class tax cut. now, this is what's in the bill. we are regulating and putting in new rules for the insurance companies. we aren't taking over, but this is pretty simple and the gentleman from new york mentioned it. this is about prevention. there is no one who can argue with the fact, mr. speaker, that we have 30 million-plus people in the united states of america have no preventative care at all, dumped into our emergency rooms, much sicker than they need to be. and it doesn't take a

philadelphia lawyer to figure out that that costs a lot of money, as opposed to giving each one of those -- and they pay nothing. they go there and pay nothing. they pay no co-pays. it's all free, shifted off to the next person who comes in with an insurance card. what we're saying is, it is cheaper for us as a country, since we are already paying for these folks anyway through higher insurance premiums, it's cheaper for everybody if we give them an insurance card and make them pay something. we're going to start -- no more free riders. everyone is going to have to pay something and a primary care physician who will give them a $20 prescription drug instead of going to the emergency room a week later and costing us $15,000 or $20,000. and the way the insurance industry is set up, to knock

people off the rolls and deny coverage, especially stories we heard with people with hiv-aids, who isn't covered, that gets dumped on everyone else. we are saying this is a pro-business bill. and i'm gad that the tea baggers are in washington, d.c. to watch this pass, because this is going to be the most significant tax cut for middle-class people in the history of our country, especially geared towards health care. and when i can go home and tell my folks, a family of hour making $50,000, that they will get a $5,800 tax credit on their health insurance, they probably don't know that right now, but i'm going to spend the next six months making sure that every family knows that they're going to get that tax cut and they're go to go like what we have done here.

and i yield back to my friend. mr. garamendi: i thank you, mr. ryan. one of the things we heard all day is about medicare cuts. somehow the medicare system is going to be cut. i would like to get into that, because this bill specifically helps medicare. we talked about the doughnut hole, the prescription drug benefit, which, by the way, our republican colleagues aren't here at the moment, when the prescription part d was put in place, the republicans never bothered to pay, never bothered to pay for that benefit. you want to know where the deficit came from? it came from the two wars that the bush administration started and didn't bother to pay for it either, so we ran up the deficit. here's the thing for seniors, to go back on my point. the program provides very specific benefits to seniors. it provides $250, this year,

additional benefit for seniors to pay for drugs. those that fall into the doughnut hole, that doughnut hole begins to close this year and in five years, it's totally gone. in addition to that, it is explicit in this legislation that the medicare benefits will not be reduced. i will yield. mr. tonko: i think what's important to note is this is rather offensive. if we talk about the doughnut hole being medicare part d, who is paying that? is medicare paying that? no. our senior citizens are being asked to contribute. so this one wa3 so this one was cleverly devised. you can almost see the game of footsy going on because somewhere people thought that we

could come up with this great clever name, sounds attractive, sounds tempting, a doughnut hole, basically, i can tell you many seniors come to me in my district and say within any months, i'm at that threshold. those not familiar, think of the doughnut with the hole in the middle, you get covered for a while, then you don't. those measurements could have told them to get people into their own pocket paying for this device that is hurting our senior community. so when we talk again about freedom, this is freedom from the doughnut of the worst kind. this is freedom from digging into your pocket and paying for your pharmaceutical needs to stay well or stay alive. so this measure is great about freeing us from that doughnut hole, but this isn't medicare-funded but out of the

individuals' pocket and by the year 2018, we will close that hole completely. it's an expensive proposition. but again, as you pointed out, no one worried about paying for it when they came up with the plan. and i thank you for yielding. mr. garamendi: i might add that between now and 2018, some of us are going to be around here and we're going to give the federal government the power to negotiate drug prices. we're not there today. it's one of the things missing in this legislation that i wish was in it, but it will happen. no longer will they be free from competition. representative watson. and i yield to you. . ms. catson: i was in church

last sunday, i was going down to take communion. i was four down from getting communion from the priest, someone leaned over and said, don't take my medicare away. the distortions out there have to be set straight. i appreciate my colleagues and you, representative garamendi. for talking about closing the part d doughnut hole. and you know, it was, i think, about 2,300 -- about $2,300 you yao had to expend for your own prescription and then you went into a period of time when you got no help and no discounts. that's going to be eliminated. i want to say for my friend who stopped me in church in sunday, the legislation will allow

6,100 medicare beneficiaries in my district who entered the part d doughnut hole and are forced to pay the full cost of their prescription, that under this bill, these beneficiaries will receive $250 rebate in this year, 2010. 50% discounts on brand name drugs, beginning in 2011. and complete closure, complete closure of the doughnut hole within a decade. a typical beneficiary, who enters the doughnut hole who will see savings of over $700 in 2011 and over $3,000 by 2020

and you'll be here to see that because you're from california too. mr. garamendi: thank you, representative watson. thank you for making it so perge to your district and the same savings are to be found in every one of our districts. we have a different percentage of seniors in our district but there are very, very significant savings in this. i want to take up one other position that's been brought up by the republicans over and over again in a disingenuous and dishonest way. the direction -- reduction in medicare expenses. where do those come from? they would have us believe that those savings are from the reduction of benefits. that's not true. there's explicit language that benefits will not be reduced. i'll tell you where the money is going to come from. it's going to come out of the

pockets of the insurance companies who have ripped the american government off for the last six years, ever since the george w. bush administration created -- creethate medicare advantage program which they did in reconciliation. it is abominable that this government has had to pay a bonus to insurance companies to provide medicare advantage programs, when in fact, they said they could do it cheaper than the fee for service medicare program. 16% bonus over and above the average cost of medicare for seniors is given to insurance companies for no good reason. that bonus that unintended and unnecessary profit is going to be over. secondly, there is fahd and abuse in the medicare system, not from the seniors who are

striving to get their benefits, but rather from purveyors, doctors, medical device people and out and out fraudsters. we're going to be hiring some of those people we talked about earlier from the i.r.s. and the c.m.s., the medicare office, those folks are going out there chasing after criminals that are ripping the medicare system off to a fare-thee-well. that's where the reductions are coming from. i yield to mr. thompson. mr. thompson: representative garamendi, thank you for bringing us together. you're right to have over-- mr. tonko: i thank you for bringing us together. people say, where are the savings coming from? not from you, from the prophet calling -- column. it's allowing our seniors to have an advantage by having that program continue, but

making certain that the oversubsidization is denied. you're very right about the fraud and the abuse that may be part of that programming. but it's also important to note, i believe, that situations like medical home models and accountable care organizations will provide for the collaboratives i believe to coordinate the resources, improve access and bring together the confluence of services in a way that streamlines without hurt, actually helping the outcome for our seniors and of course free annual wellness visits, making certain the co-payments, deductibles are not going to saddle individuals, again, having to be forced to dig into your own pocket, we will now have free annual opportunity screenings of essential types, annual checkups. these are items that will not require, will actually co-payments and deductibles will be denied, so you go

forward and encourage the preventive and wellness approaches to health care delivery, an important aspect, i think to the benefits of this program. we have to remember that the $1.2 trillion that saved in the second 10 years and the $138 billion in the first 10 years are just those budget-related scorings done by the congressional budget office. but there are those who are suggesting that well beyond any kind of budget impact are the ripple effects of a good kind that will come simply by instituting wellness and prevention and access and putting clinics into the system, relieving our health care delivery system of uncompensated care where a number of these things that can't be scored by the congressional budget office so it goes well beyond the $1.3 trillion or $1.4 trillion that's been projected by a conservetive, nonpolitical c.b.o. group. i think there's reason for great hope here. if we can instill hope, if we

can insert hope into the lives of people, into the fabric of our health care opportunities, we're achieving a great deal and again, because this is so critical in the lives of people and in the profit columns of businesses that proside jobs, this is an important discussion. mr. garamendi: i want to hone in on what you're saying, but let me wrap up the senior part, let's be very, very clear about the medicare program. first of all, the aarp, american association of retired people, say that this legislation is going to lower costs and improve care for seniors. secondly, it's in the bill. no benefit cuts. it's in the bill. $250 in the pocket of seniors who have got their medical prescriptions in the doughnut hole to help pay for that. and that's this year. this year. not 10 years from now, this

year. medicare part d doughnut hole hole is beginning to close. it's going to take time because it is expensive and does take a lot of money but it's going to close by 2018. and there'll be significant drug discounts for seniors who use generic drug this is year, saving seniors, just as you said, millions of dollars out of their pocket and that's not in the c.b.o. score. mr. tonko: i would have to add to your list of benefits in this measure, the stabilization of this medicare trust fund, providing that trust fund as we go forward, being a stronger element out there, enabling us to again provide the medicare benefits and services that are required. it's an important aspect. it's important to 113,000 beneficiaries in my district system of we want to make certain it's there.

mr. garamendi: it's not on my list. you want to add to my list another thing. mr. tonko: i will add to that list. i'm glad you made mention that no benefit cuts are included in the language of the bill. these are another bit of freedoms we're talking about in this measure. mr. garamendi: we add that the medicare trust fund is made solvent in nine years. we added that one here. medicare advantage, we pa talked about that, the bonus to insurance companies is gone and that money is not sent off to some other program. that savings stays in the medicare program. reducing senior premiums, improve access and expanded benefits. i did have it here. i just can't read it. here's the medicare fiscal health. and finally the issues you were talking about, prevention, organizing the care so we have continuity of care. mr. ryan, i yield to you.

mr. ryan: just listening, you know, i wanted to speak directly to members of the house, we've got a few minutes left tonight and some debate tomorrow and what -- how does this play out over the course of the next few months? and by listening to what you gentlemen have just got done saying about medicare, the significant improvement of strengthening medicare, we're going to have to run an election. there's probably going to be an election on this bill. and what's happened over the last few months is our friends on the other side have consistently tried to throw arguments against the wall and they would just fall they wouldn't stick, because they weren't true. we started with death panels and illegal immigrants and abortion and we went right down the line and none of them ended up working out, it's going to bankrupt the country, then we get c.b.o., you go right down the line. they said it's going to support abortion, then we have 60,000 catholic nuns, 600 catholic

hospitals, 1,400 catholic nursing homes a bunch of catholic theo low januarys saying this is -- chath lick theologians saying this is not a pro-abortion bill, it's a pro-life bill. then a neutral party saying it's going to reduce the deficit by $1. trillion in the second 10 years, $130 billion in the first decade, on the backs of what president clinton did by reducing the budget deficit. we a history of doing that. quickly, the debate in the fall about health care is going to go something like this. we pushed an initiative that is going to close the doughnut hole and give our seniors $250 just this year to help close that doughnut hole. our friends on the other side, running against us, will be say we want to repeal that. we don't want that closing of the doughnut hole. we're going to be campaigning

on little kids who have a sickness are now being denied insurance coverage because they have a pre-existing condition, we're going to say we stopped that from happening in the united states of america. our friends on the other side are going to be running a campaign saying, we want to repeal that. we're going to have in there, we want to have a ban on pre-existing conditions for all citizens across the board. our friends on the other side are going to be running a campaign saying, we want to repeal that. and on and on and on. people who are now getting kicked off the roles, their insurance roles because they got sick, we're saying that could never happen again in the united states of america and next fall our friends on the other side of the aisle are going to say, no, no, we want to repeal that ban. we want to continue that practice of the insurance industry being able to kick people off their insurance because they got sick. we're going to be saying, hey, your kid that just went on the insurance roll because they were 24 years omed and we aloud

that to happen because of the health care reform bill, our friends on the other side are going to be saying they want to repeal that provision that allows young people to stay on their parents' insurance until they're 26 years old. very clear, the family in many district, your district in new york you district in california, your district in california, all across the country, those families of four making $50,000 a year who are going to get a $5,800 tax cut that we put in because of this reform, our friends on the other side are going to say we want to run this election about repealing that tax cut. same with the 50% or 35% and up to 50% tax cut for small businesses. our friends on the other side are going to say we want to repeal that. this is a referendum on health care reform, i say i want to have that debate day and night for the next six or seven months because that is the a debate, mr. speaker, we can win

and we shall win. the issues in this this, the only issue now is a lot of people do not know all these benefit that was been itemized here tonight. they will know in the next six months. i yield back to my friend. mr. fware men dee: we've got about six minutes left, let's each take about two minutes. mr. tonko. mr. tonko: thank you for bringing us together, there's so much to talk about with this bill. as has been mentioned by representative ryan, a family on an annual income of $50,000 gets a $5,800 tax credit. it goes up to the threshold of $88,000 for annual household incomes whereby families are going to receive some sort of benefit. this is an extraordinary opportunity to provide for middle income america to provide tax credits for them so that they can promote wellness within their individual families. absolutely tremendously strong idea. it empowers the middle class,

the working families of this country, it empowers the small businesses. representative watson talked about the benefits in our district to small business. in my district, 14 or 15 small businesses will be given the opportunity for tax credits to help purchase employer-based plans for their given employees and don't they prosper from a sound and well work force. i think that's important. they also will have the benefits of shopping within an exchange, if they so choose, and so there's all this effort made to make certain that we advantage people in a way that will promote wellness, provide health care in an affordable and accessible fashion. we also doe do know the benefits to our senior community, with all the strengthening of medicare, without reducing those benefits, promoting their pharmaceutical needs being addressed fully in the near future so that they are not avoiding those pharmaceuticals

simply because they cannot afford them. that is bad policy. so what we have here is freedom galore to be able to stay well, to stay strong, to grow prosperous, be hopeful. this is a golden moment. this is a wonderful moment that we will share tomorrow as we come out to this floor and address this health care reform measure and thank you, representative garamendi, for bringing us together, thank you for the opportunity. mr. garamendi: i appreciate your passion on this, no less than mr. ryan's. >> and very quickly i too want to add my thanks to my colleagues for providing us this time. quickly, i want to remind our country that in this legislation we have community health centers and i remember in the beginning some people were very disturbed because their districts and they feel that they have areas that are so remote, how will this

health insurance plan cover them? they need to know that nationwide the legislation will provide $11 billion in new funding for these health clinics. and they'll be in rural areas, they'll be way in suburban areas, those people that are not in the urban corps will be provided with health care. and if the community health centers in the district, your district, receive the average level of support, these centers will receive millions of dollars in new assistance so that we can cover as many of the uncovered as possible. and i want to remind the viewers that if you have insurance and you like your insurance you can keep your insurance. if you love your doctor or your

health care provider, government does not come in between that relationship. and i want the viewing public to know that. and then i want to end by saying, there is no deficit spending. i sat in my office and heard the opposition say it's going to rob --, it's going to rob my children and, you know, it's going to rob their children, and it will rob them because they'll have to pay off the deficit. the cost of health care reform under the legislation proposed is fully paid for. in large part by eliminating -- and you mentioned it, waste, fraud and abuse and excessive profits for private insurers. the legislation will reduce the deficit by over $100 billion over the next 10 years and by

about $1 trillion over the second decade. so, thank you, representative garamendi, for allowing us this time to set the record straight. onward to victory. mr. garamendi: thank you very much, representative watson. it's been a joy these 35 years to work with you and to work with you this evening. this is a historic moment. this is something that you and i and many others have worked decades to try to provide health insurance for all americans. some 32 million americans will receive health insurance as a result of this. there will be the incredible tax cuts for working men and women, for small businesses, they too will receive significant tax credits so they can provide insurance for their employees. and there will be programs to promote wellness. there will be programs to create better information technology so that we don't have to waste

money every time you present yourself with a different doctor. and you have the freedom to choose your own health insurance company and your health insurance company no longer has their freedom to deny you benefits and coverage. there are serious insurance reforms in this. finally i want to end, if i have the time, hopefully i do, i've seen this sign so many times around the capitol in the last several days and it says, we, the people. those are the first three words of the preamble of the united states constitution. and it goes on to say, we, the people of the united states, in order to form a more perfect union, that's what we're doing here. a more perfect union within our families so that we don't have to fear bankruptcy and the loss of health because we have no health insurance, a more perfect union in our communities so that everyone in our communities has health care and access to health

insurance, establish justice. thank you so very much. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. all members are reminded that it is not in order to address those outside the chamber. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: speak out of order for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. burgess: i thank the speaker for the recognition. mr. speaker, i came to the floor of the house tonight because i wanted to share with the house a letter i received from a texas medical association, the letter says, on behalf of the nearly 45,000 physician and medical student members of the texas medical association and on behalf of our 25 million patients we are writing to express our opposition to the health care reform bill, h.r. 3590, that will be before the house of representatives this weekend. please vote no. unlike the american medical association, we do not believe the passage of h.r. 3590 and the

encompanying reconciliation bill are steps in the right direction. our position on health reform remains steadfast, keep what's good in the health care system and fix only what's broken. to repeat what we said in december when the united states senate passed this bill, the bill is bad medicine for our patient and the t.m.a. cannot support it. the legislation does not -- nothing to correct the flawed medicaid formula, the legislation would increase the cost of health insurance for our patients, delivering less in return. it would dramatically enhance federal government interference, it would create incentives for patients to pay a fine for not having insurance rather than to pay an unrealistic amount for insurance coverage. it would not protect texas liability reform and does even less to expand those protections, excuse me, to patients andfications in other areas. it would impose untested and arbitrary treatment standards that do not improve the quality of patient care. in addition the bill could be a budget buster for texas, according to the texas health and human services commission, the current proposal would cost

the state of texas up to an additional $24 billion in increased medicaid spending for the first 10 years of its implementation. please note that our position is not based solely on the personal opinions of the leadership of texas medical association in a recent survey of nearly 3,300 members of the texas medical association almost 70% said that if a new health care bill becomes law it will make the united states health care system worse than it is now, six out of 10 said the quality of patient care will get worse, patients' cost for care will go up and patients' health care coverage will go down if the new bill becomes law. please work with your texas colleagues object both sides of the aisle to develop and pass a rationale payment system that keeps up with the cost of running a practice and is backed up by a fair and stable funding formula, no more band-aids, it's time for a permanent medicare fix. thank you for your consideration of our request. and i ask unanimous consent to insert the letter from the texas medical association into the record.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burgess: i also want to share a letter i received from the american college of surgeons. again, similar language on behalf of the more than 75,000 members of the american college of surgeon, i rewrite that we share your commitment to make quality health care more accessible to americans over the past year and a half. they've sought to serve as a constructive voice for reform, guided by the college's principles of promoting quality and safety and improving patient access to surgical care. while enacting meaningful liability reform and reducing health care costs. the college principles underscour our commitment to health and reform that will extend coverage and improve access to quality health care for more americans without addressing the fundamental concerns, the college believes that h.r. 3590 will undermine quality and threaten patient ac sets to -- access to surgical care, therefore it opposes the act of 2009, but we do remain steadfast in our role as champions for meaningful health care reform that is in the best interest of patients. i also have a letter from the

texas association and home care and hospice. they conclude by saying the texas association for home care and hospice again respectfully requests congress reject the notion that reductions in medicare home, health and hospitals reimburse with rates equates to health care reform and long-term cost containment and ask that you -- that you vote no on the current health care proposal. i also wanted to share some insights from the texas attorney general in regarding the constitutionality of the individual mandate. according to gregg be a ot, the individual mandate is constitutionally suspect because it does not fall within any of the normal categories. the mandate provision of h.r. 3590 attempts to regulate a nonactivity. the legislation actually imposes a financial penalty upon americans who choose not to engage in interstate commerce because they choose not to enter into a contract for health insurance. in other words, the proposed mandate will compel nearly every american to engage in commerce

by forcing them to purchase insurance. and then use that could hearsed transaction -- coerced transaction as the basis for claiming authority under the commerce clause. seems a littler to the white house to get -- tort use to get to that point. and then from the governor, rick parry, while washington argues, texans wait for real reform that results in everyone to have the opportunity to live a healthier life without adding trillions of dollars of debt that we and our children will end up having to pay. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. burgess: i cha the chairman for the consideration. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from georgia, mr. gingrey, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. gingrey: meeping, thank you. and i'm very pleased -- mr. speaker, thank you. and i'm very pleased to have been on the floor here with my physician colleague from texas. in fact, my ob-gyn colleague

from texas, who talked about the opinion and read the letters from the texas medical society and also the governor of texas in regard to their opposition to this bill that we're going to be voting on tomorrow, h.r. 3590. in fact, i don't have any letters tonight from the state of georgia, mr. speaker, but indeed it was georgia, the georgia medical association and the texas medical association that came together months and months ago in an organized effort and many, many other state medical societies and special societies across this country i think representing some 500,000 physicians who are in opposition to this legislation. in contrast, mr. speaker, to the support -- i'm still quite astounted by that, the support of the american medical

association, but it is important to know, while i respect the american medical association and their leadership, they represent probably less than 20% of the physicians in this country. and so i think we need to always put that in perspective and again i'm glad to hear from congressman dr. michael burgess from the state of texas regarding that. mr. speaker, as you know, the democratic majority had the previous hour. i had an opportunity both while at home a few minutes ago and here on the floor in the more recent moments to hear some of the discussion. and, you know, it's real interesting to hear some of the comments and i the gentlewomanned down quickly some of those and i would like to kind of go over it a little bit so my colleagues can understand and get maybe a different, possibly in my opinion, mr.

speaker, more accurate perspective on that. the gentlelady from california indicated in her remarks that in this bill, in this health care reform, that there is absolutely no deficit spending. in fact, she talks about mentioning that something like $100 billion savings in the first 10 years, i guess is calculated by the c.b.o. of course, mr. speaker, we all know the c.b.o. can only work on the numbers given to them and they do a great job and we're not here to denigrate the hardworking men and women of the c.b.o., they've been working hard for over a year and a half now, every time there's a change they have to recrunch numbers, but it's kind of interesting from the historical perspective of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. remember when medicare, medicare, the program was passed

in 1965, the c.b.o. and the number crunching at that time said that, well, by the time, by the year 2010, based on all the information that we have, demographics and how long people live and that sort of thing, by the year 2010 this program, although not nearly as costly in 1965, will cost about $60 billion in 2010. well, mr. speaker, you, and i think everybody in this chamber and everybody listening knows we're in the process now on an annual basis, in the medicare program, of spending about $480 billion a year. we're spending more on medicare than we're spending on our national defense. $480 billion. well, the number crunchers

didn't miss it too much, did they? they only missed it by $420 billion. just a little, small accounting error, i guess. you round it off, maybe. in government speak. so for the gentlelady from california, and i respect my colleagues on both sides of the aisle but no deficit spending indeed. and to suggest that there'll be $1 trillion worth of savings in the second 10 years, don't hold your breath, colleagues. don't hold your breath. well, you know, it's been interesting today. it has been real interesting. i told the men and women on the west steps and the mall earlier today, i don't know how many were there, mr. speaker, but thousands, maybe 25,000, people from all across the country who

came, i had an opportunity to ask some of them how they got here. some drove, some came on buses. some flew. inteed, yes, there were some from california. but god bless them, mr. speaker, another member of the majority party in the previous hour referred to them as tea baggers. -- as teabaggers. called them teabaggers. i find that highly insulting, mr. speaker, to these men and women who made that effort to be here. we, the people. another gentleman in the majority party talked about we the people. and referred to we the people and talked about the declaration of independence, in order to form a more perfect union and that this is a result this bill was going to give us

a more perfect union. mr. speaker, i know you've heard many on your side of the aisle say, we have been trying to pass comp rehence i health care reform for 40 years, 50 years, 60 years. president theodore roosevelt tried to do it. president woodrow wilson tried to do it. president franklin delano roosevelt tried to do it. president kennedy, president johnson tried to do it. more recently, of course, president clinton back in 1993, tried to do it. we almost did it, they said, mr. speaker. we almost got there. and now here we are, right on the cusp of victory, as they describe, and tomorrow we're going to get over the finish line, we're going to do it, for we the people. well, mr. speaker, let me

suggest to you and my colleagues, why we have never done it over the past 40, 50, or 60 years. because we the people don't want it. we the people hate it. they did then and they do now. we the people have rejected this. in every poll that has been taken from the last year and a half and the democratic majority and the democratic leadership and the president of the united states, they know that. they know that. we the people don't want it. we the people don't want what otto von bismarck had to offer 150 years ago. we don't want western european socialism for this country are. we the people like what's written in the constitution and that's what we want. and we want to make sure that we the people know that there are some sensible men and women in this congress, in both the house and the senate that will

continue to stand up, right to the 11th hour, with our last breath to stand up for the we the people and fight off this socialism that this administration and this majority is insisting on. with that, mr. speaker, i want to recognize some of my colleagues on the floor with me tonight that i think feel just as strongly as i do and we the people would like to hear from them as well. at this point, i'd like to yield some time to my colleague from georgia, my good friend from the third congressional district of west georgia, the honorable lynn westmoreland. mr. westmoreland: i'd like to thank my fellow fweaian for taking this hour to straighten out some of the things said in the previous hour and you know, i listen to them with great interest and you know, i believe that they believe in santa claus the easter bunny, and the tooth fairy. because they kept -- i was

going along with them pretty well until they got down to the free part. free wellness screening. free eventive. free tests. i want to ask the people, mr. speaker, of america, have you ever gotten anything free from the government? the american people pay for everything that this government does with their taxes or with penalties or interest, that every american pays is what pays for everything this government does. there's no free lunches here and for our colleagues on the other side of the aisle to get up and say that these things were free, they've got to believe in the tooth fairy. they've got to believe in santa claus or the easter bunny to believe that the gentleman, our colleague, from ohio, was talking about the things he'll campaign for. in november. and what we will be campaigning

for and what he will be campaigning for. i welcome -- i welcome those campaigns. because even though they haven't heard the people in this third saturday in march, they will hear from the people in the first tuesday of november. but i think there's some facts that i would like to just get straight while we're talking about free things. free what the government is going to do. this bill is not free. as the gentleman, my colleague from georgia explained, the costs that come with it. let me tell you some things that are going to be on the campaign, that's going to be ahead of this congress for the next seven months. let's talk about the $1.2 trillion, the total cost of the bill between 2010 and 2020. though the real cost is, as the gentleman stated, doesn't go

until 2014. this includes $940 billion in coverage subsidies. those aren't going to be free. that's what your tax dollars are going to be paying for in coverage subsidies. those are not free. $144.2 billion in additional mandatory spending. that's going to come out of your tax dollars. $70 billion in discretionary spending in the senate bill and $41.6 billion in unrelated education spending. yeah, they included education into this health care reform. because they could not under any other way get it passed through the senate. $208 billion, and both my colleagues here tonight are doctors. this is the cost of a 10-year patch for the s.g.r., the sustainable growth rate, to prevent reduction in medicare physicians payments which is 21%, i believe, right now. this cost is hidden because it

was included in the earlier democratic bill but was dropped to better provide a cost estimate. this is your tax dollar s, this is not free. $569.2 billion in the legislation. including $48.9 billion in new tacks in the reconciliation bill alone. that's not free. that's coming from your tax dollars. $52 billion, the amount of new taxes on employers. on employers. $52 billion of new taxes. who can't afford to give their employees health care. and that's going to be imposed when unemployment is right now at 9.7%. 12 is the number of new taxes in the bill that violate president obama's pledge that under our plan no family making

less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. 46% is the percentage of families making less than $66,150 who will be forced to pay the individual mandate tax. which by the way, i believe is unconstitutional. 16,500 is the estimated number of i.r.s. auditors, agents and other employees that will be needed to collect the hundreds of balls of -- billions of dollars in new taxes lelevied on the american people. there's nothing free in this bill. there's nothing free. you have got to believe in the tooth fairy and the easter bunny and santa claus all rolled into one to think that you're going to get something free out of this. $20 billion is estimated amount of money that the i.r.s. and the h.h.s. will need for the

cost of additional regulations, bureaucracy and read redd tape over the next 10 years. this spending is not included in the c.b.o.'s cost estimate. $53 billion, the amount of revenue this bill raised from social security to appear as if it actually reduces the deficit. $202.3 billion, the amount of money cut from medicare advantage for seniors to help offset the cost of awe a new entitlement. we've heard over and over that if you have the insurance you like, you can keep it. have we not heard that? you can keep the insurance that you have. these seniors with medicare advantage are not going to be able to keep the insurance that they have. where does that come from? $436 billion, the amount of federal subsidies in the bill that will go directly to insurance campaigns to provide health care in the exchange --

to insurance companies to provide health care in the exchange. $462 billion to pay to these evil insurance companies. no wonder they don't mind getting cut out of a little bit of money for medicare advantage for providing additional coverage the seniors pay for when they're going to get another $436 billion. 102, the times the senate has not somehow amended a reconciliation bill passed by the house and thus required further house. these people have been convinced that there is a santa claus, a tooth fairy and an easter bunny for the other side to believe the senate is going to take the reconciliation bill they're sending over. 63% is the percentage of physicians surveyed who feel health reform is need but are opposed to the sweeping overhaul legislation.

$9.3 billion is the amount estimated the government would spend annually on medicare. and in reality, medicare spent $67 billion, or seven times the initial siment. if you believe that this is a deficit reduction bill, then you certainly believe in these people i have mentioned prior. $1.55 trillion, the projected fy-2010 deficit, 11 times the 10-year savings that the democrats claim that this bill will provide by spending more than $1 trillion for this government health care takeover. if you think the government is going to be giving things for free, you're kidding yourself. if you think this thing is going to cost what they say it's going to cost, you're kidding yourself.

if you think this is going to reduce our deficit, you're kidding yourself. the american people are smarter than this and i think our colleagues on the other side of the aisle need to realize this. if they don't realize it now, they will realize it in a very short time to come. this is not going to be behind them, it's going to be in front of them. i welcome the opportunity to campaign on this issue alone will provide that they have failed to promise and keep the promises that were made to the american people in this last election. so i want to thank my colleague from georgia for doing this. i thank you for giving me the opportunity to come and share this. and hopefully tomorrow we'll be able to make our case to the american people and to change some hearts and minds of some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. with that, i yield back.

mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, i thank my colleague from georgia for being with us this hour and hopefully he will be with us for the entire hour, as long as he can stay. we also have the gentleman from texas, as i referred to previously, who did the special five-minute talk about the texas medical society and the way the governor in texas and the medical society have written letters to him, to share with all of us, mr. speaker, in opposition, in strong opposition to the passage of this bill tomorrow. and i'd like to refer to dr. burgess at this time. mr. burgess: i thank the gentleman for yielding and thank him for the recognition. the gentleman and i spent some time this afternoon up in the rules committee, a little hideaway up on the third floor of the capitol. i don't think the air conditioning is working today. it's always an interesting time when you get to spend a little time in the rules committee. and we heard several people sort of lead off their so little quis as they were ex tolling the

virtues of this bill that's going to try to come through the house tomorrow. they say, we're going to go down in history. the gentleman from georgia said, it certainly ran through my mind, i don't know if you're going to go down in history, but you're very likely to go down in november. the gentleman talked about the people who have been here all day around the capitol. and it has been impressive. and i think back to a year ago, my town halls, people were so frustrated with what they saw happening, they didn't know how bad it was going to get, but they were very frustrated with the direction they saw from this congress and from this administration and they kept saying, well, we want to do something. what can we do? we want to stop this. we want to you stop this. and if you can't stop it, we want to stop it. and a year ago it seemed like we were so far away from a fall election, but that unease, that energy kept building and building through the spring and through the summer and through the fall and we saw it here on

july 4 when the people came and camped out on the washington mall, we saw it again on september 12, when people fled into the capital and to make their voices heard and we certainly heard it today and, you know, you might ask, does this do any good? this sort of outpouring of angst and emotion and energy to surround the capitol with living, breathing americans who want to press the point of, hey, look, it's supposed to be govern with the consent of the governed, govern with the consent of the governed and we didn't give you our consent for this. we don't want it. we want to you take it back. do you wonder if it does any good to have people around the capitol all day, all of that energy, all of that enthusiasm, all of that pushback against what they see as a very bad health care bill. and i'll tell you that it does. because as we started the day today, we just refer to my little friend from "schoolhouse

rock." i brought him out earlier in the week. this is a bill who's on capitol hill, the one day he wants to become a law. this bill loons mad. i wonder why this bill is mad? you look at what he's thinking and he says, i don't want to be deemed or slaughtered. he's referring of course to the slaughter rule, the chairwoman of the rules committee, ms. slaughter, had put forward the slaughter rule that said we wouldn't even have to vote on this senate bill that no one wants to vote on, we'll just deem its passage and then send it on to the president for his signature. well, that's kind of a big deal in this body. it kind of might not really be in accordance with all of the rules laid down by the founders in the constitution. so, the bill was mad. he didn't want to be deemed or slaughtered. well, guess what happened? about the middle of the afternoon, up in the rules committee, and i don't know whether it was because of all the people who were here or not, i don't know if it was whether their voices were heard and folks on that rules committee felt the heat that was being generated around the capitol outside, but somewhere or

another in the middle of the afternoon they said, you know what? this guy's right, we'll just have an up or down vote. so tomorrow, although the outcome may not be what i want, we're going to at least have an up or down vote on h.r. 3590, the senate bill. i do want to tell people what what's at stake here. this bill -- what's at stake here. this bill is a bill that actually originated in the house of representatives. it was not a health care bill, it was a housing bill. the ways and means committee voted on in the house of representatives floor, went over to the senate as a housing bill. it languished over there, when the senate needed a vehicle for a health reform bill, they took up that bill that had already been passed by the house, stripped all the language out of it, like pouring out the inside of an apple or something, put their health care language into this bill, passed that bill in the senate with 60 votes and now that they no longer have 60 votes in the senate and do not want to go to a -- they had the opportunity to go to a

conference committee right after christmas. they still had 60 votes, to heck with the notion that republicans were blocking a conference committee, that's a fairytale. they had 60 vote on december 26, they could have named conferees, they could have gone to a conference committee and done it the right way and tried to put those two bills together and bring that product back to the house, but they didn't want to do that. they wanted to do something smoother or something easier. so scott brown won an election in massachusetts, they don't have 60 votes anymore. now they really can't go to a conference committee. their only way forward is to pass the senate bill or take the senate bill that's passed the senate and bring it back to the house and then the question will be for the house of representatives. will the house now concur with the senate amendment to h.r. 359 to? it -- 3590? the answer to that is yes, the bill is passed, it does not go back to the senate, there's no further adjustments on it, it is what the senate bill is with no changes, that goes down to the white house or the president comes here, it is signed and

within a matter of 20 minutes that bill has become law. now, all the people in this house who say, yeah, but i want to tweak things a little bit, i want to change some language here, i want to adjust this over here, maybe there's something we can do for the doctors over here, maybe there's something we can do for seniors over here, and we do this in a reconciliation bill that only takes 51 votes, yeah, have fun with that. because you're going to make all of those adjustments, we will pass that bill in the house, however it looks it will go over to the senate and there is no guarantee that the majority leader in the senate will ever pick that bill up and even look at it because they don't have to. this congress was charged with passing a health care bill and, hey, that happened march 22 on the floor of this house when we passed h.r. 3490. mr. gingrey: if the gentleman will yield back. i agree with him completely in regards to that fix it bill, the reconciliation bill. it very likely could ping pong back and forth forever and nothing in that so-called fix it

bill that maybe many of the members, mr. speaker, on the majority side of the aisle are counting on as they make that difficult decision possibly to vote yes tomorrow, that ping ponging back and forth could result in no changes to this bill that they vote on tomorrow, hrment are the -- h.r. 3590 that the gentleman texas just described, that's it, that will be the law for better or for worse and they indeed will be stuck with that bill, with having voted to support it, mr. speaker, and that's what they will have to go back into their districts in this fall campaign right up until november 2 and that's what's going to be hung around their neck and i hope, mr. speaker, that every member in this body understands what the gentleman from texas is talking about in regard to that. and i'll yield back to him at this time. mr. burgess: the important point is then that is is a senate bill. it never went through any house

committee. there was never any house input or imprint on that bill. all of that language was derivinged over in the senate and the house of representatives, although we'll go down -- will go down in history as passing health reform if that passes tomorrow, the reality is, that all a product of the senate, the house will have no fingerprints on that bill but will have that bill hung around their neck. nobody knows what's in that stupid bill. i beg your pardon. nobody knows the degree and the depth of the intricacies of the legislative language contained therein within that bill. and we will be learning the press will then suddenly become very interested in this bill and we will flern great detail over the next several months how many bad things were hidden within the dark recesses of that 2,700-page bill. and i'm going to finish up in just a minute. if i could i want to reiterate the letter from the attorney general in the state of texas, in dealing with the issue of constitutionality of this bill, because if this bill passes

tomorrow then all eyes go to the states and what are they going to do? are they simply going to accept this new unfunded mandate from the federal government? or will there be pushback from the states? gregg abbott has said they have serious concerns with the bill and said that texas will be ready to lead when the time comes if this bill is passed. but just his thoughts on the individual mandate. if quoting from him here, the individual mandate is constitutionally suspect because it does not fall within any of the normal categories. the mandate provision of h.r. 3590 attempts to regulate a nonactivity. the legislation actually imposes a financial penalty upon americans who choose not to engage in interstate commerce because they choose not to enter into a contract for health insurance. in other words, the proposed mandate, continuing to quote, in other words, the proposed mandate would compel nearly every american to engage in

commerce by forcing them to purchase insurance and then use that coerced transaction as the basis for claiming authority under the commerce clause. if there are ever to be any limitations on the federal government, then commerce cannot be construed to cover every possible human activity under the sun, including mere human existence. the act of doing absolutely nothing does not constitute an act of commerce that congress is authorized to regulate. and i thank the gentleman for his indulgence and i'll yield back to the gentleman. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman from texas. he's absolutely right. i have the pocket constitution, i keep it with me all the time, i think my colleagues here on the floor do as well. and he was making reference, of course, to the democratic majority and the chairwoman of the powerful rules committee, the gentlewoman from new york, ms. slaughter, saying that, ok,

we've finally decided that we're not going to do the slaughter solution, that we're not going to do the scheme and deem, we're not going to try to sneak this by the american people by not having our fingerprints on it, we're going to actually vote on the real bill tomorrow. we'll vote on the rule and we'll vote on the bill. well, i don't know what caused that change of heart, mr. speaker, but i think the gentleman from texas is very likely right on that. we, the people, all of these folks from all across the country that the gentleman from ohio on your side of the aisle, mr. speaker, referred to as tea baggers, they're the ones that were up here today, and i'm sure that every member of this body and the other body, republicans and democrats alike, you couldn't miss them no matter how hard some members may have wanted to.

they couldn't get away from them. i think we the people had a lot to do with it. it may be because former attorneys general said very recently in an article that they fully believe, i believe that article was in "the wall street journal," that it's totally unconstitutional, according to article 1 section 7, i've got it right here in front of me, mr. speaker, but the other reason i think it is a combination of both. i thank we the peopler. with that i'd like to refer to mr. westmoreland. mr. westmoreland: i want to thank my fellow georgian for yielding. we, the people, are the ones that are going to be paying for this free preventive care, wellness screenings, it's the we, the people, it's those tea baggers, as they were called by the gentleman from ohio, that are going to be paying for these

free government things, much like some of the stuff that we pay for now, some of the entitlements that are robbing our children and our grandchildren. of because of their escalation. the gentleman from texas mentioned something about not knowing what was in the 2,700-page bill. and we had the gentleman today talk about that we had had this bill for 72 hours now to look at and that we should know what's in it. i believe it was the gentleman from new york. well, you know, we had a three-page motion to recommit today on the floor that the gentlelady from wyoming offered on a forest or maintaining the forest lands and the americorps, the volunteers to be able to do this. a three-page motion to recommit that the reading clerk read.

and it talked about that if you were a sexual predator that you would not be able to do this volunteer work. that you would be screened and that you could do it. and i believe that the count on the board was 178 members voted against that. and then all of a sudden there was 175 and then 170 and it went on for about 30 minutes and it got down to where there were only 39 people who voted against that. . . that was a three-page bill. if that's true with a three-page motion to recommit that was read by the reading clerk, think what the unintended consequences are

in that 2,700-page bill and the reconciliation bill and we haven't seen the manager's amendment yet. that's something we don't even have. so i'm telling you -- you know, there's a story about a gentleman in -- and my colleague from georgia knows that we do a lot of hunting at night. we use dogs and hunt raccoons and it's a very big sport down there and there was a gentleman who served in world war ii who lost the bottom part of his leg. and he had a wooden peg leg put in. and so he was there with some of the guys and they were laying around the campfire and kind of cool and his leg was a little too close and burned about eight inches of that peg leg and the

dog started howling and everybody got up to start following the dogs. and the navy veteran turned around and said watch out, boys, there is a hole, every other step. there are some holes in this bill. and i believe they are about every other step. so we need to be very carbous of that and understand that i'm telling you there are more unintended consequences than we can ever believe in this bill. i want to warn my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, watch out, boys, because there's a hole about every other step. i yield back my time. mr. gingrey: i had not heard that story, but i'm very glad the gentleman from georgia related it to us, because the analogy is perfect. you know, mr. speaker, i refer to the democratic majority party

who did their hour, special order, i guess 30 minutes or so and some of the comments that were made. and one of the gentlemen made the comment that when they pass -- democratic majority passes this bill tomorrow, h.r. 3590, if, indeed, they do and he felt confident they would, that he welcomes the debate as we go into the fall and as we all stand as we do in every toe years for re-election to the house of representatives, this great body, that he welcomed that opportunity to have that debate. in fact, he suggested that the republican party, our side of the aisle, none of whom will be voting for this bill tomorrow, would be campaigning on how we

can win back the majority and do away with everything in the bill, all 2,700 pages of h.r. 3590 and the changes and the manager's amendment and whatever else we don't get to see, but get to vote on. mr. speaker, the minority party has had lots of ideas on how to reform the health care system so that we bring down the cost and give i don't know how many millions, maybe it's 15 million to 20 million people that don't get health insurance because they cannot afford it and they're not eligible. their income is not low enough. they qualify for a safety net program like medicaid or the chip program, children's health insurance program for their families. and when the president, mr. speaker, as you know, and my

colleagues know, when he invited both republicans and democrats two weeks ago to come over to the blair house and meet with him. i don't know they realized it would be 6 1/2 hours, much of it filibustering, a lot of air in that room, a lot of oxygen sucked out of the room. but the president controlled it and he recognized speakers when he wanted to and he made them yield back when he wanted to. but we had so many good ideas presented. and as we go forward and when we do regain the majority, we're not going to strike down every single provision of h.r. 3590. there are things in that bill that i, as a physician member, and many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle, agree with. and we think that they are good. the gentlelady from california

mentioned the expansion of community health centers. that's a good thing. that's a good thing. someone else in the majority party mentioned allowing our children to stay on a family policy until they're 26 years old. many of them, of course, are still in college or graduate school. and heretoforeinsurance companies have required that these children no longer could be covered under the family policy. and that was wrong. and we're changing that. and i'm glad that we're changing that. so the gentleman from ohio and others on your side of the aisle, mr. speaker, i think they misspoke in regard to that. we can and should have worked together and come up with a solution that doesn't cost $1

trillion. doesn't allow the federal government to take over our health care system, 1/6 of our economy, $2.5 trillion. goodness knows the federal government already controls about 60% of that when you think about medicare and medicaid and tricare, veterans' health care. but for some reason, the democratic majority and this president is not going to be satisfied until the federal government controls it all, lock, stock and barrel, just like they said they have been trying to do for the last 40, 50, 60 years. and i said in my earlier remarks, it's no surprise to me that it's had difficulty passing. i don't care how close it came. we, the people, didn't want it. and as the gentleman from ohio talks about let's tee it up.

we're ready. we're ready for those fall elections and ready to run on h.r. 3590 and beat these mean old stingy republicans. i want to, mr. speaker, give him a little history lesson. 34 democratic incumbents were defeated in 1994. 34 incumbents were defeated. now, when was 1994. well, it was one year after the latest and last great attempt for the federal government to take over our health care system . and that was known, my colleagues, as hillarycare. and let me just mention to my colleagues a few names and i think it will be quite instructtive, because i think men and women, you will recognize some of these names, who were among the 34 that went

into that election cycle i'm sure very confident having voted for hillarycare and the takeover by the government of our health care system. speaker tom foley, speaker of the house tom foley. first elected in 1964 and represented the spokane area for 30 years. this was the first time since 1862 that a sitting speaker was defeated in a re-election bid. speaker foley in 1992, mr. speaker, won by 11 points. in 1994, speaker tom foley was defeated by two points, a 13-point shift. colleagues, mr. speaker, does

the name dan rostonkowski, first elected in 1958. he lost his seat in 1994, despite being a 36-year veteran of this house and chairman of the ways and means committee. in 1992, i say to my colleague, mr. speaker from ohio, in 1992, done rostonkowski, won by 18 points. in 1994, he lost by 13 points. just a little 31-point shift. what happened? what happened? we, the people, decided to put him in the ranks of the unemployed. i'm not going to read all of the names, but let me just mention

one from my own state. again, 1992, donald johnson, from the 10th district of georgia. he was first elected first first term in 1992. he won by eight points. he represented my hometown, mr. speaker, augusta, georgia, home of the masters. great area. always home to me. well, donald johnson was one of the last votes for the massive, massive takeover of our health care system and also, mr. speaker, voted the clinton increase in taxes. people back home said, don't vote for that. don't vote for it and come back and expect us to re-elect you, don johnson.

but yet, i think our former colleague don johnson may have been the 117th vote in 1992. he won by eight points. in 1994, the gentleman from georgia lost by 30, mr. speaker. lost by 30. a 38-point shift. he was replaced by our great and late, i sadly say, colleague, dr. charlie norwood. he served so honorably in this bold until his death about a year and a half ago. he died in office, god rest his soul. don johnson wasn't a bad man, mr. speaker. i didn't know him personally, but he made a bad vote. and he didn't listen to we, the people. let me mention one other, because i saw her on television

earlier today, and she was realming to her democratic -- recommending to her democratic colleagues that they vote for this health care reform, massive takeover of 1/6 of our economy. she was recommending indeed that her democratic colleagues tomorrow vote yes, because it's the right thing to do. well, ms. marjorie margolis. she represented the 13th district of pennsylvania. she was elected in 1992. and it was her decisive vote on bill clinton's controversial 1993 budget. it was often argued to be the cause of her downfall. in 1992, she won by about a point. in 1994, she lost by 13 points.

and she, indeed, was the deciding vote. and the people in pennsylvania said, marjorie, honey, it's time for you to come on home, because you aren't listening to we, the people. she said this afternoon on television she has no regrets. that's 16 years ago. i'm glad she has no regrets but i don't think she intended to serve one two-year term. i don't think a lot of my democratic colleagues in the majority party, particularly the freshmen and sophomores have any intention of going through the rigors, expense, agony and stress of running to be elected to this house of representatives to only serve one term. i don't think so, mr. speaker. but that is exactly the fate

that is going to befall them as they listen to some of their colleagues and listen to their leadership and listen to the president of the united states and they make a decision that maybe the pressure from the leadership or maybe the offers from the leadership are so attractive the promises, the arm-twisting and they come down here tomorrow and they forget, mr. speaker, what we, the people, want them to do. and they may in a career-ending vote. i think it's important -- i think it's important that if you don't know your history, you're he -- you're going to repeat it. there are many more here i could

mention, but tomorrow is going to be a crucial, critical vote for many members. and i hope and pray that those who know we, the people, from their district want them to vote no, mr. speaker, i hope they have the courage to do that. and then as long as you're responding to we, the people, you can't go wrong. i would like to take some time to yield to my colleague, another colleague from texas who has just stepped on the floor. did you want some time? mr. speaker, he is going to control the time in the next hour. so let me continue to talk about some things in regard to this bill. . the bill started in the committee of energy and commerce in the house and i'm proud to serve on that committee and i've

got a few posters that i'd like to share with my colleagues and why to express to you why it is that on this side of the aisle and why we the people, 60%, 70% across this country, are so opposed to this takeover of our health care system by the federal government. on this first slide, would you just look at the additional bureaucracy that is created as the federal government begins to take over. i don't know that in any of the congressional budget scoring any expense item was assigned to the creation of some 32 additional bureaucratic czars. the health choices administrator is an example, is every bit as

powerful as the social security administrator. we talked about today the fact that there are going to be 17,000 new i.r.s. agents so they could per use everybody's tax return to make sure -- peruse everybody's tax return to make sure they have purchased a health insurance policy. not any health insurance policy, but one pried by the -- prescribed by the federal government. not maybe a health savings account with a policy that has a low premium and high deductible but, yes, catastrophic coverage that's so popular with our young people. because that's what they can best afford. no. that's not going to be permitted. we the people want it but the health choices administrator is probably not going to allow that to occur. 32 new bureaucracy -- bureaucratic agencies an growing all the time and adding to that,

mr. speaker, 17,000 additional i.r.s. agents. how did this bill get to the point that we find it at this time? it wasn't easy. i can tell that you. it couldn't get through the senate until, as i show you on this second slide, many, many political payoffs that are still in this bill, that are still in this bill. remember the cornhusker kickback? well, that wasn't taken out. in the orange bill on the senate side this was a special favor granted to one particular senator for one particular state , the cornhusker state, and instead of taking it out, when we the people complained, what did the democratic majority do? they extended the cornhusker kickback to every state in the

union. so all 50 states now get this expansion of medicaid and an unfunded mandate that the states absolutely cannot possibly survive with. the louisiana purchase. mr. speaker, i heard the senator from louisiana yesterday on television explaining why she asked for and received the louisiana purchase payoff. of course, mr. speaker, she said it wasn't a payoff. and she said, and i believe this was an interview with greta van us is tren, the senator said that, well, louisiana has to pay 70% of the price, the cost of medicaid in her state and federal government pays 30%. and that wasn't fair.

well, i was astounded, first of all, mr. speaker, to hear that. because it's just the opposite. the state of louisiana pays 30% and the federal government pays 70% and in fact they have been doing that for many, many years and probably the state of louisiana pays less into the medicaid program than almost any other state in the country. mississippi maybe a little bit less. and the reason for that, this matching is done based on the average income in the state. so a state that is suffering in poverty, they pay less in the medicaid program and we the people help them with the federal match. louisiana, you know, for many years deserved to only pay 30%. but after hurricane katrina, mr.

speaker, i don't know how many hundreds of billions of dollars have been given to the state of louisiana to help them recover. and in particular in the new orleans area. they needed it. they deserved it. a natural disaster mostly through no fault of their own, but the economy he in louisiana has improved drastically in the last four or five years since hurricane katrina and income has gone up. people are making a better wage because of all the construction and all the money that has been poured into louisiana and the state of louisiana and its representatives continue to ask for more, it's like my dad said to me one time, mr. speaker, how much more money does a rich person need to be happy? well, the answer, mr. speaker,

is, just a little bit more. just a little bit more. so i suspect that the ask-fors will never end. but i'm gladder, i'm very thankful that the state of louisiana is doing well now and the average income has gone up and they are supposed to, by the formula, by fairness, they're supposed to pay a little bit more into the medicaid program than 30% and yet the senator insists that, no, that's unfair to louisiana and that's what we -- as known as know, the louisiana purchase. it's still in there. gatorade is still in there. federal funding of abortion is still in there. and $500 billion worth of medicaid -- medicare cuts are still in there. mr. speaker, how in the world can we look seniors in the eye

and said to them, we're going to cut this program $500 billion? what could possibly be the justification for doing that? this program, started in 1965, has an unfunded liability of $35 trillion over the next 50 years. and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, mr. speaker, in the previous hour talked about how cutting $500 billion out of the medicare program was going to save the program. even suggesting that that $500 billion was waste, fraud and abuse, yet $120 billion of it is in the medicare advantage program. cutting medicare advantage 18% per year for the next 10 years and really by 2014 there will be

no medicare advantage program. why is it that 1/4 of our seniors are on medicare, sign up for medicare advantage? because it's cheaper to them and they get a better benefit. it covers wellness, it covers many preventive screening tests that fee for service medicare does not cover. it gives them an opportunity to have a professional, a nurse practitioner call and make sure that they're taking their medications and they're seen on a regular basis and yet we're going to eliminate that program. how does that -- how does that make sense? mr. speaker, it doesn't of the -- doesn't. it doesn't make sense. so, as my colleague from ohio was talking about, some of the things in this bill that they

may pass tomorrow, they may pass with some of the tactics that have been used like the cornhusker kickback and the louisiana purchase and ambassadorship here and ambassadorship there and you name it and whatever promise, they may pass it. but, mr. speaker, it's going to be a catastrophe, i think, for our seniors. let me just -- let me just tell you why i think so. and i spoke to the -- i call them tea party patriots, mr. speaker, i don't call them tea baggers and they're not a bunch of angry white men, i've heard a lot of folks say, indeed, both or three couples that asked me to sign their posters and to pose for a picture with them were african-american families. and i was so proud, so proud to be asked to do that. i mean, you know, again, all ages, men and women, white,

black, asian, we the people were there today and i think, mr. speaker, they'll be there tomorrow. but here's what's happening to our seniors, and i had a few minutes to speak to the assemblage of maybe 20,000 people and i reminded them of the stimulus package of over a year and a half ago. i guess it was maybe february of actually of last year when that massive american recovery rehabilitation act, whatever it was called, we called it the stimulus act and i think everybody understands, about $820 billion worth, and a significant portion of that package, mr. speaker, was, remember it was for shovel-ready projects. if the project was not shovel-ready in reference to some of these construction projects in the various states, then the states couldn't draw

down that money from the economic stimulus package. it had to be shovel-ready. well, i got to think being something that we passed yesterday on the floor, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, when you're having fun, time really flies and even when you're not having fun it flies. thank you so much and we'll look forward to tomorrow. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. 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. and i do appreciate that very much. it is an honor any time to come speak, have the privilege of speaking on the house floor. it's been a long day, it's been a long week. i fear there will be longer days, weeks and years in the future if tomorrow this bill

passes. because some of us have seen socialized medicine firsthand. as an exchange student in the soviet union i've seen it back in 1973. i know where this all goes. i've seen where this plays out. and i know that my friends on the other side of the aisle believe their motivation is the highest and best. i understand that. i understand our friends that are pushing for government control of health care honestly believe the country will be better off if they can only get all health care, health insurance under the control of the federal government, then everyone is better off. i know they believe that and i believe -- i know they believe they're acting in everyone's

best interest and -- in pushing for this. but that's not the basis for the founding of this country and for anyone that's read the 5,000-year leap, i mean, i was a history major, i pride myself on being a bit of a historian. and that book gave me an interesting perspective because for nearly 5,000 years when settlers came to a new area and settled down there, they came with basically the same tools, they tried to grow crops, live off the land and for 5,000 years there wasn't a whole lot of change. . and then there came this experiment, like the pilgrims who came from holland to

america, people who came to get away from persecution as christians and they came here. and after that first horrible winter when the pilgrims decided to try a new idea and give everybody private property and you live off what you grow and you can trade or sell what you have left, this private property concept began to grow and flourish and free enterprise took over. and just in the short years, relatively speaking, this country advanced far more than the whole human race did in 5,000 years, just in a couple hundred years. and it was when the entrepreneurial spirit was given a chance to just grow and flourish. because you see what happens when the government takes over health care. in those countries, they meant

well. they thought would be so much better. we give people government-control-type choice. and then you come back to the statistics, we have been told so often, gee, canada, europe and england, their health care is so much better than ours, but you compare cancer rates. if you got cancer, you want to be in the united states, because your odds of survival are so much better. why? because there's been liberty. there's been an entrepreneurial spirit. there has been more ability to take off and develop new things with more research and development right here in this country because of the basis on which we were founded. my dad had prostate cancer back in the 199 on's and thank god

he's still here and lost my mother in 1991. but if you look at prostate cancer in america, 92% chance of survival from prostate cancer. if my dad had prostate cancer, found in england, got a 50-50 chance of living. i know what i would want my father to live. now, there have been some horror stories that make all of us mad. you know, the example of the lady who was denied coverage when the insurance company knew they should have had coverage and should have provided it. and they even had their own internal doctor say yes, she should be provided the coverage and they refused to provide coverage and lost her baby and went to the supreme court and they said no because the federal

government passed erisa and under that law, you can't sue for denial of coverage. there's a provision in here and i'm wondering if that's part of the deal that talked some of the insurance companies to buy into this monstrosity. i wonder. but there are conference that will be covered under erisa that may not have been covered under reriesa otherwise. those are cases they file in state district court. the lawyer files for removal. they go to federal court and get dismissed. you can't sue them under erisa for denial of coverage. maybe that was one of the bargaining points. i have seen some of the things that got some of the pharmaceutical companies to sign on because they could force people to buy brand names. but it has been an extraordinary

day. my friend referred to perhaps 20,000, but actually when you look at the area that was filled with people today, normally, i have heard the park estimates that that area when it's full at least 80,000 people and it appeared to me to be that way and people were still coming, others going, amazing day. people want their liberty. they don't want the government to control their health care records. they don't want the i.r.s. to be the extension of the government of the health care that's going to tell them what they can and can't do. and the big news of the week was when we learned that c.b.o. said it was going to cost $10 billion to hire 17,000 new i.r.s. agents because those are the agents that are going to monitor everyone to make sure you're doing exactly what the

government and this monstrous bill is telling them what to do. i don't want this. and when you look at the survival rates, cancer, heart disease, it's better here. you have a heart problem, you go have heart surgery and they can't turn you down because you don't have insurance. i had a gentleman in east texas from canada tell me his father died because he lived in canada and under the canadian system, when he was found to need a bypass, they put him on a list where he stayed for two years because the canadian system had bureaucrats, under their bill, that moved people in front of him on the list and he died waiting to get his bypass. you don't wait two years to get a bypass. there have been abuses. we can fix those.

i have a health care bill that i filed and i've got this amended version. i have been trying to get my health care bill scored since last summer. and i think so much as newt gingrich, he said man, you ought to get that scored, that ought to score well and change the whole debate on the health care reform. it puts the insurance companies out from between us and our doctors. it tells seniors you can have your medicare and medicaid if you want them, or it's going to be cheaper for the government, we will give you $3,500 in your own debit card account and we will buy you private insurance to cover everything above that. there are all kinds of good ideas. i see friends on the floor here that have brought some fantastic

ideas. no one has done more in working to reform health care than dr. michael burgess over here. but those ideas have been shut out. i would like to recognize my friend from georgia, a member of the legislature in georgia. he has been on the debate in these issues and hearings on these issues and yield him such time. mr. westmoreland: i thank my friend from texas for taking this hour and for calling me and asking me to come help with this hour because i like the gentleman have been out today talking to some of these people that have come up and one thing, mr. speaker, that the majority of them have said to me and i'm sure my other colleagues here tonight is please help us. we don't want this. i had one lady that came to my office today that has a son has

a condition that they don't have health insurance. it's her, her husband and son. they get one unemployment check a month. their son has $800,000 worth of insurance bills today. and she said, i do not want this bill. my son has never been denied health care, good care. now, there are some people -- and the night is late and we had some people that i met today that drove 12 hours, 14 hours, 16 hours. one lady said they didn't decide to come up until 2:00 yesterday from georgia. left their home at 4:00 and got here at 4:30 in the morning. and so it's for them that i think myself and my other colleagues are here tonight to argue for them, because we are not going to change anybody's

mind on the other side of the aisle, because we don't have the power to change their mind. and i think what's been demonstrated is that if you have the control, if you have the gavel, you can offer the deals as my colleague from georgia pointed out, louisiana purchase, cornhusker kickback. i mean, we have had people fly on air force one that all of a sudden got this idea that they need to switch their vote. i think they would have made a better decision driving around in scott brown's pickup truck personally than riding on air force one. we've got people that are changing from a no to a yes that may have a job at nasa. i mean, we don't know of all the deals and all the other things.

but we do know evidently that our members are cheaper than what the senators were. we do know that. but we don't understand. and you were talking, my friend from texas was mentioning why the insurance companies are for this and he mentioned several reasons. let me give my friend another one. $436 billion that the federal government is going to be paying these insurance companies in subsidies. that's the reason they're for this bill. and i don't know if the gentleman heard our colleagues from the other side of the aisle that had an hour or so tonight talking about all the free things that this bill was going to give and not realizing, i guess, that nothing the government ever does is free. and we need to get that straight. i mean, there's not anything free. i was noticing downstairs, they were talking about the tax

credit for homes, apply with us and you'll get a free calculator. i promise you that calculator was costing somebody something. in the free screenings, free preventative screenings and medical supplies, those things aren't free. those people that we were talking to today out on this lawn and out on the steps are the ones that are going to be paying for this. the average american and his tax dollars are going to be paying for it. i have a list here about all the costs that are coming with this bill. if you had listened to our colleagues on the other side i'll, you would think they believe in santa claus, easter bunny and tooth fairy. and if they pass this bill, every problem in the world is

going to be solved and our whole problem is going to be solved. but if you talk to the medical professionals in this country, they'll tell you it's not going to be solved. they'll tell you our problems are just beginning. they're going to tell you they're going to leave their practice. i have doctors who have told me, if this thing passes and goes into effect, i will quit my practice. i thank my friend from texas for taking this opportunity. this is the last special order that will be before we have the vote, the historic vote on the government takeover of health care. and so i think it's important that we understand that we're talking on behalf of the american people. we're talking on behalf of those individuals that took their time and energy and spent their hard-earned money for transportation up here. we're up here fighting for them.

and hopefully, hopefully they will continue to fight with us, because there's only 178 republicans. and the only thing bipartisan about this 2,700-page bill that's going to pass is the opposition to it. that's going to be republican and democratic opposition. that's going to be the only thing bipartisan about this bill. everything else is a ram-through by the majority that is going to be paid for by the american taxpayers, not just in additional taxes, but by all the sweetners we don't even know what has gone on to buy these votes that is going to come about tomorrow night. i hope that people will continue not to give up on us, not to give up on themselves, because we don't need to quit. the vote hasn't been taken yet. and to my friend from texas and i know you believe in this. but we need to make sure that

everyone is in prayer about the decisions that this body is going to make tomorrow and with that, i yield back. mr. gohmert: thank you, my friend from georgia. and we have been joined by another member of congress who has been doing an amazing job, really so powerful. he knows the president firsthand having debated back home in illinois, has great insight himself and i would like to yield to mr. roskham. . mr. roskam: i twoobt think about a couple of football seasons ago. remember when the new england patriots were just having an unbelievable season, just unbelievable, winning game after game after game after game? and it looked like there was just no end in sight. if you were going to be in the t-shirt business or the hat business you could have -- no

one would have thought you crazy if you would have had said that the new england patriots were going to be the super bowl champions that year. it was a year or two or three ago. you know where i'm going. but there was one little thing that had to happen before the patriots could get the super bowl ring that year and that was they had to play a super bowl. and you remember that. there was a team, the new york giants, that had a little bit different of a plan. and the new york giants came down and they played that game and lo and behold the giants won the super bowl. there was a lot going on inside this capitol tonight. there is a lot going on inside this town tonight. there is a lot of churn and a lot of burn and a lot of folks don't know which way they're going to go on this vote. we know one thing's for sure. there's going to be 178 republicans that are going to stand up and vote against this

bill. there's also going to be some number of clear-thinking democrats on the other side of the aisle who either understand fundamentally what this will mean to the country or understand fundamentally that they will run rough shod over their constituents or for whatever reason are going to come over and vote with us. we just don't know what number that is. and so this thing is not done by a long shot. i was so incredibly encouraged to go out today and to see the folks that were coming out, respectful, solid, clear-thinking americans, that as the gentleman from georgia said, these folks got up, they drove all night, i got a voice mail from a friend from illinois, he and his wife were driving all night to get out here, why? because they knew that this was the place to be. they knew that this was the time to stand up for freedom. you know, ultimately if you think about it, there's an

account in the bible think a want to take us all back to. we all remember isaac, abraham's son who had two sons himself. one son was esah, the oldest son, and the other was jacob. esah as the older son in that culture and that time basically when the old man were to die, esah, the oldest son, was going to get a lion share of his father's estate. probably a 90% ownership share. something like that. it was called the birth right. and as the bible tells the story, esah is out in the field and he is hungry, he is really, really hungry. he comes back in, his younger brother jacob is making a pot of stew. and esah smells the stew and he says to his younger brother, give me some stew. and jacob, the younger brother, says to the older one, give me your birth right. and esah, like a fool, said yes.

esah traded his birth right for what? for a pot of stew. for nothing. now there's a lot of americans right now that are anxious, there's a lot of americans that look out over this economy and this season that we're in and they say, wow, i've not seen this season. i've not seen unemployment like this, i've not seen fannie mae and freddie mac unravel like this. i've not seen the wheels come off the cart like this. i've not seen it where my children come out and graduate from college and can't get a good job because unemployment has peaked beyond %, even though the white house told -- 8%, even though the white house told me, if we spend $1 trillion that's going to be fine and fantastic. i've not seen a season like this before. and ultimately sometimes there are folks that are listening to that and they're feeling that and are anxious and they're hungry and they're fearful and they're worried and you know

what? they have every right to be. but the temptation, and this is where this group that came in today, these folks that drove overnight, they understand the temptation. and what they're saying and what republicans are saying in the house of representatives today, what republicans are saying in the other body, what they're all saying is, don't take the bait. don't give away your birth right as an american for what? for stability from this town, from this place? are you kidding? this institution unfortunately can't balance a checkbook. they can't offer you stability. they can't offer you the hope for your children in the future. don't take the bait. and what the american public is saying to political leadership is, look, we've seen it, we understand it, yeah, we're fearful, we're uncertain about the future, but we know it's not where that majority wants to take it. we know we don't want to go there. that doesn't end well. that ends in lost opportunities,

that ends in clam to us debt that is foisted on our children and our grandchildren. you know, the gentleman mentioned a couple of minutes ago this i.r.s. empowerment essentially that comes as a result of this bill. you think about that. know now, it would be fantastic if this bill really did create more slots, more opportunities for physicians like dr. burgess, for physicians like dr. price, for physicians like dr. gingrey and others. we've got more medical doctors in our conference, house republicans who are physicians, than ever in history, i think. it would be great if this bill created slots but it doesn't. you know what it does? it creates slots for i.r.s. agents. why? because the internal revenue service is going to be the group, going to be the institution, that is empowered if this majority has their way. think about that. what that ultimately means is,

health care -- carriers are going to be sending the functional equivalent of a 1099 to the internal revenue service telling them whose got the official coverage that speaker pelosi has said that they need to have. you got the official coverage, ok, you get the 1099 that comes from the health carier and it goes to the internal revenue service. but if your name's not on that list and you're a taxpayer, you know what's going to happen? you better come up with some excuse because if you don't come up with an excuse, you know who's coming after you? 16,500 new i.r.s. employees, $1 billion a year the c.b.o. estimates, $10 billion over 10 years for what? for what? for a crushing debt, for an organization to expand authority and that's absolutely not the direction we need to go. there are so many reasons to say, no, no, no, this is not what we need to do. and i am so encouraged by the

folks who showed up today that said, you know what? we're going to speak out. we're going to speak out. the republican leader john boehner i think put it best and then i'll close and i'll yield back, the republican leader says this, he said, democrats may run washington but the american public runs the country. and that is true. this would have been done months and months and months ago, but what has happened? the american public has risen up every time. every time. every time. google, the phrase end game, democrats end game, google that phrase and you'll see they were certain to trot that out at the end of july. this was going to be done by the august recess and then one group of people said no and that was the american people. the american people said no. no. we listened. but thank you very much. we don't want this bill, we want you guys to go back to the drawing board and start over. so the fight is on. this is anything but done.

this is anything but finished. and the american public knows it, that majority knows it, because if they had the votes we would be voting tonight. we would be voting tonight if they had the votes. they don't have the votes yet and there's still some clear thinkers on that side of the aisle, mr. speaker, who understand what is at stake and i just want to thank the gentleman. mr. gohmert: will the gentleman yield for a question? mr. roskam: i'd be happy to yield for a question. mr. gohmert: you know, the president has been promising members on the other side, if you will just pass this bill, the speaker, speaker pelosi has been promising people on the other side, if you will just pass this bill then between now and november there are going to be things in this bill that kick in that are going to make america love you and want to vote for you in november. i was just curious if the gentleman knows what the biggest thing is that kicks in immediately in this bill between now and election time? mr. roskam: i have a lot of ideas but my sense is that

you've got something on the top of your mind. what is that? mr. gohmert: the number one thing that kicks in are taxes. they kick in immediately. and i know you've dealt with the grassroots, you've been part of the local communities and business community and the gentleman knows what it is to make a bottom line. right now in this economy, you can envision what happens with additional taxes, say an additional 8% payroll tax on some of the people you've been hearing from and talking to? and i'd yield to the gentleman. mr. roskam: no. it is a crushing thought, actually. and here's the misfortune of this. that there is in this time in our country really an understanding that health care does cost too much. and everybody who needs access doesn't have access. and pre-existing conditions do

jam people up. those are the things that i'm hearing from my district. they say, you know what? that's what we want you to be talking about. we don't want you to be talking about wild-eyed 2,700-page adventures, we don't want you to be talking about trillion-dollar boondoggles where different places across the country, based on political influence, are manipulating things and cajoling things that you can hardly stand when you hear about them or talk about them with a straight face. but my district is saying, and i know the gentleman from tyler, texas,'s district is saying the same thing and that is, get about the business of fixing this economy, get about the business of driving health care costs down and therefore by driving it down making it more affordable and then ultimately deal with pre-existing conditions. we can do that. we have a good republican plan to do that. but with all due respect to speaker pelosi, what she is asking this majority to do, and some of these members that haven't made up their minds right now, she is asking them to do what you could only care --

characterize as political bun ji jumping. just go right off the bridge, but you know what? the speaker hasn't measured the rope. she hasn't measured the rope. and she's saying, no, ya'll just lean forward. it'll just be great. tomorrow just lean forward, just right off that bridge, just lean forward. yeah, i'm sure it looks really good. it looks like it's going to catch. she hasn't measured that rope and she's asking her majority, unfortunately, to lean over and just frankly squander the trust that the american public has put in them. i yield back. mr. gohmert: i thank my friend from illinois so very much and, you know, i've been talking to people all over my district and of course today with tens of thousands of people going through the crowds and hearing from people, talking to people. it's been staggering. but i had a conversation last night before i came to the floor with a gentleman, small business, he has under 20

employees, but he was saying, in my 25 years in this business, i've never been so on the bubble as i am right now. i'm hanging on by fingernails. you put a 2% tax on me, much less an 8% payroll tax on me, i'm done. i'm out of business and everybody that works for me is out of business. and when the number-one concern in america is the economy, jobs, and really not just jobs but careers. we're destroying careers here. people want jobs, no, they need careers. but we're destroying them right and left. here's an article this week about caterpillar. they looked to the president and they said, please, don't do this. this will cost us $100 million in the first year.

how do you think a company that is in -- you know, they're doing ok, they're the world's largest manufacturer of construction equipment, but they have said they're barely hanging on. the president went to caterpillar and said they're barely hanging on, we're going to help them, how is helping them, putting another $100 million burden on them? they're going to have to let people go. they may drive caterpillar overseas like we have to so many businesses. but i'm telling you, my heart breaks for these businesspeople who love their employs, they've been with them for a long time and we're hearing, i don't want to lose my employees. i'm either going to have to close down, have my employees take dramatic pay cuts at a time they sure can't afford it, or i'm out of business. those are the choices i got. i appreciate my friend, dr.