in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from new york will be postponed. . it is now in order to consider amendment number 5 print in house report 111-467. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from maryland seek recognition? ms. edwards: mr. chairman, i have an amendment the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate that amendment. the clerk: amendment number 5 printed in house report 1111-467. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1300, the gentlewoman from maryland and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from maryland. ms. edwards: thank you, mr. chairman. and i yield myself such time as i may consume. i want to first thank representative andrews for

introducing the improve act, h.r. 5013, and to chairman skelton for all their hard work on this legislation and really steadfast support of our armed services. my amendment will help businesses that are in the vicinity of defense insulation, especially small, minority and veteran-owned businesses and access defense contracting opportunities. i've heard the frustration of my constituent small businesses that are unable to access the complex system of defense acquisition and procurement. one company located just across the street from andrews air force base in camp frank, maryland in my congressional district, has repeatedly attempted to access on base business opportunities. it this company has the capacity as indicated by contracts they have with other government entities but they've been stymied on every attempt at andrews with this amendment this company will receive the technical assistance necessary to compete. in my conversations with the base leadership at andrews, and i want to thank them for their hard work, i hear their desire

to work with the surrounding community and the businesses in it. with this amendment, they'll receive the authority they need to engage in outreach to drive economic development activity directly around the base. with entities such as the company i referenced, and this is true all across the country where we have insulations located, i'm -- installations located, i'm encouraged that through this provision, this scenario can play out all across the country. and in some regions, this is particularly important. the provision will help communities around the defense ins at thatlations by directing them, including the businesses which are often times right along the sense line but just left outside the contracting opportunity. by including these community businesses, capable community businesses, small businesses, the ins at thatlations will strengthen their bonds -- installations will strengthen their bonds to the community. it's as important for those

communities as it is for our installations. we want there to be a bond with the local community because we want them to embrace the installations that surround them. in the fourth congressional district of maryland i have so many confident and capable businesses that provide products and services that could really be used by the department of defense. but due to a lack of knowledge and a lack of communication and a lack of outreach, these companies often don't even hear about the opportunities until it's way too late. the amendment takes a step toward ensuring our businesses are aware of those opportunities and then supports competing for them. this amendment is a powerful tool for the defense department to use to be more inclusive of our businesses and that all too often watch competitors from other states, regions and sometimes even other nations receive contracting opportunities right in those communities. and with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady -- does the gentlelady reserve the

balance of her time? ms. edwards: does the gentleman from -- the chair: does the gentleman from new jersey wish to seek time in opposition? mr. andrews: i do, although i do not oppose the amendment. i would yield to the minority any time it wishes. i want to strongly -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to strongly support the gentlelady's amendment. i think there's scarsly a member of this body who has not encountered a situation where a strong, viable business just outside the gate of a military establishment finds frustration that it cannot fairly compete for business opportunities. and the gentlelady has well described the situation. i've never heard a constituent say they want a especially deal or they want, you know -- a special deal, or they want, you know, to have special rules under the competition. what i've heard them say, mr. chairman, is that they want a fair and even chance to compete but they want to be able to show there's some -- there's some benefit to shopping locally. and i think this is true in each of the districts that we all

represent. i think the gentlelady has struck exactly the right balance between the need for true competition, so if the best deal's further away you take it, but where there is careful and deliberate contribution of the companies and venders that already exist in -- vendors that already exist in the community where the military base is cloketted. not only does this have the bell -- located. not only does this have the better value of the tax dollar, it will build better community relations for our bases throughout the country. i think she's done a great service by offering this amendment. i would urge a yes vote on it and reserve the balance of the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from maryland. ms. edwards: let me just conclude and i thank you, mr. andrews, for your comments because it's so true. but as a nation we've already seen the beginnings of an economic recovery. what looks to be a strong economic recovery. but we need to make sure that our constituents and that communities and businesses throughout this country, especially the ones that are

located in proximity and vicinity to defense installations, also enjoy the benefits of this economic recovery. and so it is true, it's my goal that with this amendment no more of my constituents will drive by an onbase construction job and look at that job in progress or see a delivery truck going into that base and through the gates of the installation and say to themselves, i wish i knew how to get business with the defense department. i understand that frustration and i understand why we must address it and i believe that this amendment does exactly that. and, again, as mr. andrews has pointed out, the gentleman from new jersey's pointed out, that in fact this is about enhancing competition, it's not about getting in the way of it and it's about giving the department of defense the kind of tools that it needs to engage in that kind of community outreach. so no more will there be an excuse of not understanding how to reach those businesses, but they'll have a tool to make sure that they get to them. and so with that i urge the

passage of this amendment and i yield the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: mr. chairman, i urge a yes vote and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from maryland. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 6 printed in house report 111-467. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from wisconsin seek recognition? ms. moore: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate that amendment. the clerk: amendment number 6 printed in house report 111-467 offered by ms. moore of wisconsin. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1300, the gentlewoman from wisconsin, ms. moore, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from wisconsin. ms. moore: well, thank you, mr.

chair. my amendment addresses the role that small businesses can play in helping our defense department and the men and women in uniform who ultimately are benefited by a properly functioning acquisition process. now, there's not an elected official anywhere who won't tell you that small businesses are the key engines of economic growth for communities across our country. including milwaukee, for which i have the honor to represent. we heard this statement countless times. and according to the department of defense, small business is the key to sustaining and improving our industrial base and to maintaining competition and innovation. yet despite congressional efforts to encourage the participation of small economically and socially disadvantaged businesses, including those owned by veterans of small businesses and

defense acquisitions, concern remains about bundle contracts and those businesses to fully participate on the level playing field against larger defense contractors. i know i've heard these concerns from businesses in my district including just this morning. i'm sure that my colleagues can share similar stories. when the rubber hits the road at the department of defense, small businesses find a giant pot hole waiting for them in pursuing contracts. if we are to reform this broken acquisition system, which is the goal of this bipartisan bill, we need to ensure that it is working for small businesses as well. we can't do that without assessing how well it is working for those businesses now. and that's what my amendment intends to do. my amendment calls upon the department when developing measures to assess contractor

performance as called for in this bill before us to specifically measure how the prime contractors themselves are involving small businesses. including those owned by veterans, women and socially and economically disadvantaged individuals as well as subcontractors. if i'm not mistaken, thorough law requires that large federal prime contractors receiving federal contracting exceeding $550,000 and $1 million in the case of construction on a contract which offers subcontracting opportunities must have subcontracting plans with goals that provide maximum opportunities to these small businesses. i'm so pleased that the bill already would require the department to look at the excessive use of contract bundling, which has previously been identified as an obstacle for small businesses competing for d.o.d. contracts. and i also know that in the

report accompanying this bill, the house armed services committee urged the department to develop a metric for small business utilization as part of the new assessment tools the bill requires. my amendment supports that goal. at this time, mr. chair, i would reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. does the gentleman wish to be recognized in opposition? mr. andrews: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition although i do not oppose the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: mr. chairman, i'd like to thank the gentlelady for offering this amendment and her fierce advocacy for the people not only of the milwaukee area but small businesses across the country. the gentlelady is correct that one of the underlying ideas in this bill is that defense procurement organizations within the department of defense will be evaluated by measurements of how well they are doing their job. and they in turn will measure contractors, prime contractors, on how well they are doing their

job for the service member and for the taxpayer. one of the criteria by which the procurement organization should be measured and by which the prime contractors should be measured is their compliance with the law with respect to inclusion of small businesses. and that's what the gentlelady's amendment does. we strive to include small businesses not only because we acknowledge on both sides of the aisle that small businesses are the economic generator of 3/4 of the private sector jobs created in our country, but also because we understand that competition that is engendered by the inclusion of more small businesses improves the quality and value of the contracting process, it improves the quality of what we're buying for the service members and their families and value for the taxpayer as well. so the gentlelady's amendment, i believe, institutionalizes the

practice of evaluating inclusion of small business competition, not in lieu of a better deal, but to create a better deal for the service members and for the taxpayers. so i thank her very much for her contribution to this bill. i would urge a yes vote in favor of her amendment and reserve the balance of the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentlelady from wisconsin. ms. moore: thank you so much, mr. chair, for yielding. it is time that the rhetoric meets reality. small business is the key to economic growth in our country and ensuring that small businesses can compete and that the defense department gets the products, services and goods it needs on time and on budget are not mutually exclusive goals. but unfortunately for small businesses, business as usual at the d.o.d. and too many other federal agencies means little or no business for them. innovation is not the exclusive domain of large companies.

small businesses are innovative. in fact, they may have a greater incentive to be innovative because that innovation is what may allow them to successfully compete against larger firms. when we put all of america's ingenuity to work, it benefits our military, our taxpayers and our communities. i urge a yes vote on my amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: i yield back the balance of time in opposition, urge a yes vote. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from wisconsin. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 7 printed in house report 111-467. for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut seek recognition? mr. murphy: mr. chairman, have -- i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 7 printed in house report 111-467

offered by mr. murphy of connecticut. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1300, the gentleman from connecticut, mr. murphy, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you very much, mr. chairman. and first let me express my thanks to mr. andrews, to the committee and to the ranking members for all of their work on bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor today. my amendment is simple but add as clarification to the bill. there is a really important program in title 4 of this legislation that seeks to have the department of defense do outreach to nontraditional suppliers, nontraditional manufacturers throughout the country. small manufacturers by and large who may have very small amounts of contracts with the department of defense or no contracts at all but with a little bit of outreach and contracting help can be future suppliers and future members of our industrial military base in this country.

this amendment seeks to ensure that program be operational for firms here in the united states of america. specifically targeting the help to the expansion of the industrial base which is defined as those bases in the united states and canada. we know why it's important to spend our military acquisition dollars here at home. first, we need to use taxpayer dollars to grow jobs in our back yard, by better targeting u.s. taxpayer dollars, 70% of which is used to purchase for the military here in the united states, were growing the american work force. but we also have national security reasons why we should be purchasing here at home. by making sure that it's american manufacturers building for our building, that we're securing a long-term manufacturing base for equipment. we further protect the security of our nation. this is a great practice. i'm so thankful for both

parties bringing it for a vote today. i think you'll find a myriad of companies throughout the country who with a little bit of help and a little bit of outreach can be part of this industrial base. i think of one country in connecticut, a small manufacturing firm, only about six or seven employees. they've got a small amount of military contracts as a subcontractor today, and they came to me and said, listen, representative murphy, we could do more but we don't have the capacity to compete with some of these big, traditional, large manufacturers. this could help them and perhaps thousands of others across this country. this amendment simply seeks to clarify that that program will be operational here at home. with that, mr. chair, i'd reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: mr. chairman, i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment although i am not opposed to it. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: i thank the

chairman. i'd like to thank my colleague from connecticut for offering this important amendment which clarifies an important point home. he has been very focused, as many of us have, on protecting and expanding the industrial base of our country to create jobs and national security. and he tells the story of his visit to the firm in connecticut that has six or seven employees. that is precisely the firm that title 4 of this bill wants the department of defense to reach out to. not simply because we understand the job creation benefits of it, but because we understand the ingenuity and creativity of small firms, like the ones that mr. murphy mentioned. some of the very best solutions, engineering solutions, software solutions, logistical solutions has gone from very small organizations. they're agile enough and creative enough to solve very big problems.

mr. murphy in his careful reading of the bill realized that there was some question as so whether or not that outreach would occur to firms based in the united states or in canada under the firms of the statute to which he referred. and i think he's made a very important contribution in making sure that that outreach is targeted to those firms. this is not only a mechanism for creating jobs in our country, assisting the national security of our country but inviting ingenuity and competition into the procurement process and therefore saving the taxpayers money. so i very much appreciate his effort in bringing forth this amendment. i'd urge its adoption and reserve the balance of my time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from connecticut. mr. murphy: thank you, mr. chair and thank you, mr. andrews, for working with us on this. all of us who represent small manufacturers have heard the story as they seek to compete with companies that are underpricing them. from china, asia and throughout

the globe. the defense dollars that we spend here on acquisition, better targeted to help those small firms is part of their future salvation. i think this bill overall represents a tremendous opportunity for the taxpayer. this program specifically represents an opportunity for u.s. taxpayers and u.s. manufacturers alike. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: i urge a yes vote on the amendment. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from connecticut. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 8 printed in house report 111-467. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. quigley: mr. chair, amendment at the desk. -- i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment.

the clerk: amendment number 8 printed in house report 111-467 offered by the gentleman from illinois. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1500, the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. quigley: i want to thank mr. andrews and those who helped with this legislation. this goal is essential to improving acquisition. the department of defense accounts for 80% of the energy consumption, including 330,000 barrels of oil each day. just petroleum products cost d.o.d. $13 billion per year. my amendment will save money and conserve energy by including energy efficiencyy as a metric in performance assessment of defense acquisitions. it will also make weapon systems more energy efficient,

a critical reform that can save lives. consider that in afghanistan, the marines alone consume 800,000 gallons of fuel each day. these 800,000 gallons of fuel must cross from pakistan to afghanistan through a lawless border region. during this 40-mile trip from karachi, soldiers are extremely vulnerable to i.e.d.'s. this amendment will reduce the number of troops in harm's way. i urge you to support my amendment and support energy efficiency in the defense acquisition process. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey, does the gentleman wish to claim time in opposition? mr. andrews: mr. chairman, i do. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: mr. chairman, weighed like to thank mr. quigley for offering -- we'd like to thank mr. quigley for

offering this amendment, as well as ms. giffords and mr. bartlett for their joint offership of this amendment. the basic mechanism in this bill, as i stated earlier, is to provide performance criteria for the purchasing organizations within the department of defense. this amendment says that one of those criteria may be energy efficiency standards in the purchasing. now, what does this mean? it means that the procurement organizations should get the very best deal from the point of view of the service member as well as the taxpayer. and one of the factors that should be taken into account is energy efficiency. you know, for example, if under this bill the procurement organization is purchasing landscaping services and all things being equal for the quality landscaping services and the price that one of the organizations uses more

energy-efficient lawnmowers or other gardening machines. that purchase would be favored under this mechanism to encourage but not require energy efficiency. this goes to a much broader question in our country that obviously involves the fact that we're buying nearly $300 billion a year worth of imported oil from countries around the world that may or may not be friendly to us. the largest consumer of energy in the united states economy is the department of defense. commendably, the department, under republican and democratic administrations, has adopted as a matter of policy a methodcal increase in the amount of renewable energy the department of defense is using. and one of the ways it can reduce consumption toward that goal is energy efficiency. the amendment the gentleman from illinois is offering is entirely consistent with that purpose because what it does is

to integrate into the procurement decisionmaking process a set of ideas that says the procurement organization will look at the energy efficiency ideas of a given competitor for a given contract. we support this amendment because we believe it will save the taxpayers money, add value to our efforts to protect the environment, add inducements to the ability to promote renewable energy. and so we would urge a yes vote. i do want to reserve the balance of my time in part so that one of the co-authors of the amendment -- as a matter of fact, with the permission of the chair, i'd like to yield the balance of our time to one of the co-authors of the amendment, the gentleman from maryland. the chair: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for the two minutes remaining. mr. barton: thank you very much. i am very -- mr. bartlett: thank you very

much. i'm very pride to come here and support this bill. i want to thank the bill managers, mr. andrews, mr. conaway, mr. skelton, mr. mckeon, mr. ellsworth, mr. coffman who worked so diligently on this bipartisan legislation. i'm very pleased to join my colleagues, congressman quigley and congresswoman giffords in offering this amendment. this amendment provides the department of defense the full support of congress to use energy efficiency as a key tool to improve our national security and providing more value to taxpayers regarding our defense dollars. this amendment will send an important and strong signal to defense contractors that their bids will be more competitive if their product and services will use less energy. i urge support of this bill. i am very pleased that among all the institutions in our country, our defense departments are the most aggressive in pursuing good

energy policies. we in the world face a huge crisis in energy, and i'm pleased that our defense department is leading the way in our country and i'm very pleased to be here to support this good amendment and very good bill. thank you. i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. all time has expired. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 9 printed in house report 111-467. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. quigley: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 9 offered by mr. quigley of

illinois. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1500, the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. quigley: it would have cape to assess whether and to what extent program cost estimators for major defense acquisition programs are indeed independent. second, the amendment asks the cape to determine whether a lack of independence affects their ability to generate reliable cost estimates. for 30 years now, d.o.d. officials, analysts and industry experts have argued that a primary cause of the cost growth in d.o.d. acquisitions is unrealistically low cost estimates. many of these unrealistic cost estimates are generated by individuals, such as program representatives, who have a stake in the approval of their

system. the newly created cape is designed to generate reliable cost estimates but cost estimates are are by contractors who doesn't have reliable estimates. this amendment seeks to address this problem. i urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment and reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey, does the gentleman wish to be recognized in opposition? mr. andrews: i do, mr. chairman, although i do not intend to oppose the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. chairman. in fact, i support this amendment. i think it not only adds important tools to the bill before the body today but to the law that was enacted last year. both today's bill and last year's law require the department of defense to make early decisions about whether a product or a service it is buying or system it is buying is on track or not. and if it's not on track, the

idea is either get it on track or don't buy it. this is how we can eliminate some of the $296 billion in cost overruns in weapon systems that the government accountability office found in its report of two years ago. what mr. quigley has done is to say that the cost estimators on whom we are relying needs to be truly independent and competent. if that estimator has a vested interest in buying the product or building the system, then he or she is not going to give us an accurate or honest judgment about whether to go forward. so this amendment assures that there will be both independence and competents in those cost estimators. i think it is an excellent addition to the bill. at this point i reserve the balance of my time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from illinois. mr. quigley: mr. chairman, i yield one minute to my friend and colleague, the gentlelady

from arizona, ms. giffords. the chair: the gentlelady from arizona, ms. giffords, is recognized for one minute. ms. giffords: thank you, mr. speaker. as one of the sponsors of this amendment and a strong advocate for defense acquisition reform, i rise today in support of the amendment and urge its passage. the amendment requires the department of defense to make energy efficiency a consideration in buying and developing new weapons systems and new equipment for the military. this is a smart amendment from a green technology standpoint, but let me also stress that this is not about just being green. first and foremost, platform efficiency is a national security issue. our military's use of fuel and electricity has intertwining impacts on our greater national security. a 2007 army report cites 170 service members killed transporting fuel or guarding fuel convoys. requiring the department to examine how well current and new systems use that precious commodity will help us reduce consumption, a good green tech

benefits, -- benefit, but also saving the lives of our military. in terms of electricity usage, most of our military bases' critical loads are dependent on the national grid system that is underpinned by a 60% dependence on foreign oil. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from illinois. mr. quigley: i yield an additional one minute to ms. giffords. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is recognized for within additional one minute. ms. giffords: thank you, mr. chairman. this represents a single point of possible failure for our most important military assets. the requirement of that this amendment puts in place will mean we must take into account the stresses placed upon the grid and how we can reduce those to enhance the security of our defense infrastructure. by considering the use of onsite renewable generation, we can better secure our base critical infrastructure against possible attack. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and vote for the underlying bill. i commend chairman skelton and

ranking member mckeon for bringing this to the floor and for congressman andrews and conaway for their hard work in putting it together and with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from illinois. mr. quigley: i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: i urge a yes vote and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 10 printed in house report 111-467. for what purpose does the gentleman from oregon seek recognition? mr. schrader: mr. speaker, i have an amendment the dt -- at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 10 printed in house report 111-467 offered by mr. schrader of oregon. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1300, the gentleman from oregon, mr. schrader, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from oregon. mr. schrader: thank you, mr. speaker.

i yield myself such time as i may consume. i rise today because it is no secret to any member of the house the united states faces a looming budget crisis. to address this crisis and bring our deficits under control, we must consider all options. today we work on our work, reining in the spending on defense contracts. the amendment i'm offering today will control small portion -- a small portion of this spending and ensure necessary transparencies are in place within the defense industrial relationship. my amendment addresses the department of defense's use on contracts for personal services to hire senior mentors. the current use of contracts for senior mentor personal services circumvents necessary transparency protocols the rest of the department has. the defense department has no uniform policy on the use of the senior mentor contracts which vary among the services.

we do not know and the public does not know how many of these contracts are awarded or even at what cost. my amendment would open these contracts to regular procedures for transparency. the amendment will establish standard rates of pay for senior mentors and apply financial disclosure and conflict of interest provisions already applicable to other federal employees. the military will still benefit from the knowledge and wisdom of retired officers while ensuring taxpayer money is spent wisely and appropriately. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from -- does the gentleman from texas wish to be recognized in opposition? >> mr. chairman, i claim the time in opposition even though i'm not opposed to the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to add a word of caution to the amendment, even though i tend to support it. the department of defense has instituted a suspension of the

policy that led to these problems and have put in place a policy that looks very similar to this codification of the rules. the department of defense will limit those rules over the next several months. mr. conaway: i worry that the policy's too strict and will limit the department of defense's access to the right people for the right information at the right time. none of us want that. we all want transparency, we all want evidence of conflict of interest to be out there so we all know that. i'm in agreement with the spirit what have the gentleman's trying to do, i just offer a word of caution that if the practice under the department of defense's current policy which is very similar to this shows problems and issues that we don't anticipate with this, that we would in conference come back and address those properly. so with that word of caution i would certainly yield to the gentleman. >> i support the amendment and share the ranking member's concerns. mr. andrews: i think the amendment addresses them in two ways. one is that the language of the amendment is quite flexible.

that as long as there is transparency and adherence to high quality, the department's not restricted from these relationships. it simply has to be more careful about them. and secondly, obviously the committee has continuing oversight over this issue. and the gentleman has my assurances that if we see an undue restriction on access to talent then we're in a position to take appropriate action to correct that problem. mr. conaway: with that i will support the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman from texas yields back. the gentleman from colorado. oregon. mr. schrader: i appreciate the concerns from the member of texas and acknowledge the member from new jersey's responses. i think that this is a good amendment. it does hopefully make sure that our senior officers can continue to give their insight, knowledge and wisdom without any hint or taint of something which i think

is possible under our current statute and laws. this will make it easier for members who have served our country gallantly over their careers to come back and continue to share with us in a forth right, transparent manner. we win, they win and the taxpayer wins with that i yield back the balance of my time -- wins. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it, the amendment is approved. it is now in order to consider amendment number 11 printed in house report 111-467. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia seek

recognition? >> i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: amendment number 11 printed in house report 111-467 offered by mr. connelly of virginia. the chair: the gentleman from virginia, mr. connelly, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from virginia. mr. connelly: i thank the chair and yield myself such time as i may consume. let me start by thanking the chairman and ranking member of the committee and the subcommittee for their leadership on this thoughtful legislation, to deliver long-needed reforms for our military acquisition. i'd also like to acknowledge the tremendous work of the armed service's committee panel led by mr. andrews of new jersey and mr. conaway of texas. my amendment builds on the panel's recommendation of getting the most out of the industrial base. defining and assessing the industrial base will be an ongoing challenge for both the department of defense and

congress -- congress dating back to the creation of the armed fores themselves. one of the key findings of the panel was the need to cast a wider net in terms of defining the industrial base beyond the traditional players. many of today's technology innovations are being brought forward by small and midsized companies that are more commercial in nature and don't fit the traditional mold of the industrial base. while we must preserve those unique industrial capabilities that have made our armed forces the world's most advanced military force, we also must adjust to the innovative changes within the supply chain to ensure we provide our troops with the tools they need to perform their duties. to accomplish this we need to adjust our industrial policy to reflect the growing importance of services and information technology providers in the industrial base. we also need, mr. chairman, to acknowledge the importance of systems ennearing and integration to our military operations. this amendment would create an industrial base council within the d.o.d. the council would compliment the

blue ribbon panel on eliminating barriers to contracting with the department of defense that's also created by this legislation. whereas the blue ribbon panel would be comprised of industry representatives that will present recommendations to the pentagon on eliminating barriers to those nontraditional suppliers, this council would be tasked with assessing those and other proposed policy changes and then recommending specific access to the secretary of defense. the council will be comprised of the undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics who should chair the group. an official from within the undersecretary's office will be appointed to oversee the council. the council membership will also include officials within the secretary's office responsible for manufacturing, research and development systems engineering and systems integration services, information technology and sustainment and logistics. the director of d.l.a. and representatives from other military departments. in addition to providing budgetary and policy guidance to the secretary on modernizing the industrial base, the council

will provide strategic input for the defense review and other reports and will revise and issue guidance for the d.o.d.'s technology and industrial base. this amendment, mr. chairman, creates an industrial base fund which when supported by appropriations will support the actions and recommendations of the council itself. this is a good government initiative that will strengthen our industrial base, strengthen our small business community and our military readiness moving forward. i urge my colleagues to support the amendment and these important acquisition reforms and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. conaway: mr. chairman, i claim time in opposition even though i'm in support of the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. conaway: thank you, mr. chairman. i yield to mr. duncan for as much time as he may consume. the chair: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized. mr. duncan: thank you very much. i thank the gentleman from texas for yielding me this time and i rise in support of this bill to make some very needed and commonsense reforms in the

defense acquisition program. i want to say that i support the last amendment that just passed to help relieve the problem that i've been concerned about for a long time, the reinvolving door at the pentagon and i support this amendment which hopefully will help and i think is intended at least in part to make it easier for small businesses to get involved in the defense department contracting process because far too many defense contracts in recent years have been sweetheart insider deals that have gone primarily to very large businesses, very large well connected businesses. "usa today" reported on its front page on december 29 that a group has 59 former high ranking military officers advising clients on how to get defense contracts while many are being paid by the defense department

to give it advice and they're drawing huge pensions with some getting $15,000 a month or more plus free health care. some of these people connected with this durango group even served as corporate directors or paid individualers to the defense contractors in addition to their pay from durango. the founder of drankow refused to be interviewed for the "usa today" story that -- about this, but he received $180,000 in 2009 from one defense contractor, $127,000 from another, served on the board of four other defense contractors that do not disclose compensation and was board member of another company that buys and else is defense companies and a consultant to three other defense giants. he has been described as a military industrial legend by one columnist. too much of this has gone on in recent years and i hope and i think that this is what -- in part this bill is directed at.

in addition to pensions as high as $220,000 a year, many retired admirals and generals are paid up to $1,600 a day to be defense department mentors. 80% of these mentors have ties to defense contractors and what one observer described as an amazing conflict of interest. i do want to say that i comment the secretary of defense who -- commend the secretary of defense who i understand has put in new rules recently to try to correct some of this but this is a problem that's been crying out for action and i hope that this bill will correct some of this that's gone on and it's something that we need to keep an eye on to make sure that some of these scandalous type of sweetheart insider deals don't continue as they have unfortunately in the past and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the g -- the gentleman from texas.

mr. andrews: i think one of the purposes of mr. schrader's amendment, we thank him for his support. i want to commend and thank my friend from virginia for his excellent amendment. we tried to establish in this bill the idea that the defense department should coordinate the industrial base and broaden it so the service members and taxpayers get a better deal and we invite ingenuity and innovation. mr. connolly has made sure that our good intentions in this bill will become a good reality. by the establishment of the council that mr. connolly establishes, they'll be a group that foresee overseas implementation of the ideas that we have. so i think it strengthens the bill considerably. i commend mr. connolly on being a fierce advocate for his district in his area which is so intimately involved in solving this problem. i thank him for his contribution and urge a yes

vote and would yield back to my friend from texas. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from texas. mr. conyers: i yield back as well. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: i want to thank my colleague for his gracious remarks. no other members on our side seeking recognition, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the gentleman from virginia. mr. connolly: on this issue i'd respectfully request a recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from virginia will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 12 printed in house report 111-467. for what purpose does the gentleman from mississippi seek recognition? mr. childers: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 12 printed in house report 111-hch

-- house report 111-467 offered by the gentleman from mississippi, mr. chilleder. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1300, the gentleman from mississippi, mr. childers, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from mississippi. mr. childers: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank mr. andrews and my dear friend, chairman ike skelton, for putting forth this important legislation. changing the way the department of defense conducts its acquisition activities is essential to restoring fiscal discipline in our government. i commend the committee's efforts to ensure that acquisition personnel at the department of defense are well trained to make the best decisions for both our national security and our economy. my amendment makes a small addition to this by including market research strategies. this minor addition is of great importance to many districts, like mine. today, upwards of north mississippians are employed by defense contractors and that number continues to grow. these employees work hard every

day to create millions of products and services that keep our troops safe in theater and protect our homeland from outside threats. these include many contractors at the air force base as well as those that make uniforms. the defense contract is vital to the economy of mississippi. it's important when the department of defense makes a decision about who receives a military contract and what term that contract contains, it considers how surrounding communities are affected and how these communities can contribute to that contract. the addition of market research strategies to acquisition training would ensure that the acquisition personnel at the department of defense are trained to take into account the local economy surrounding a potential defense contractor and how the unique makeup of the local community could provide added value to the department. it will assess the department in taking into account the

unique work forces, like communities, like the golden triangle region in my district and the ability to save the government money. during this difficult economy, it's important that congress remains focused on job creation and preservation as well as restoring the balanced budget. my amendment ensures that the d.o.d. can consider the impact of defense acquisition on local jobs and that the government has additional tools to find new ways to cut costs and promote fiscal responsibility. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment, reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: i rise to claim opposition -- time in opposition to the amendment although i do not oppose the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: i thank the chairman. i thank my friend from mississippi for offering this well thought out amendment. one of the key ideas of this bill is that we have a high quality, well trained acquisition work force. and mr. childers' amendment makes sure that that work force is well trained in a key area,

which is understanding that a contract is not simply effect, the firm that wins the contract and the employees that works for that firm. it affects the entire region for which the contract is awarded. now, again, nothing in mr. childers' amendment would divert the procurement organizations away from best value for the taxpayer collar. but what he does suggest -- dollars. but what he does suggest is when one defines the concept of value, it's broader than just the four corners of the contract being considered. the area he represents so ablely is one where the economy -- ably is one where the economy pivots on the absence of military contracts. and in his efforts to try to make sure that his region pros percent, i know he wants to be -- prospers, i know he wants to be sure there is fair consideration of the regional and community economic impact of a contracting decision. i think the amendment that he's offered which goes to the

training of the decisionmakers is entirely appropriate in that regard. we appreciate his contribution to the bill, would encourage the members to vote yes, and i would reserve the balance of my time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from mississippi. mr. childers: mr. chairman, i think no one else has asked to speak. with that i just -- i want to thank my colleague and the gentleman for his concurrence in my amendment. i urge my colleagues to support this amendment and the underlying bill as well. and with that i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: i urge a yes vote and yield back the time in opposition. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from mississippi. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 13 presented in house report 111-467.

for what purpose does the gentlewoman from pennsylvania seek recognition? mrs. dahlkemper: mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 13 printed in house report 111-467 offered by mrs. dahlkemper of pennsylvania. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1300, the gentlewoman from pennsylvania, mrs. dahlkemper, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from pennsylvania. mrs. dahlkemper: mr. speaker, my amendment to the improve acquisition act of 2010 will help cus wasteful spending and ensure that taxpayer funds used for our national defense is spent responsibly and efficiently. the agencies charged with our defense have a responsibility to ensure that taxpayers get the highest return on their investment while providing for the safety of our soldiers and our nation. my amendment gives the department of defense a way to save 15% or more on its existing contracts for

nondevelopmental items by allowing contract officers to opt for more efficient proposals as long as doing so does not breach existing contracts. this legged furthers our commitment to fiscal responsibility in defense spending by putting performance metrics where they are needed most. on the service and other contracts that make up the majority of our defense budget. i urge my colleagues to support my amendment and to support the underlying bill. and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: mr. chairman, i raise to claim time in opposition to the amendment although i do not oppose it. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: mr. chairman, i rise in strong support of this amendment, which is almost as striking in its common sense as it is striking as there is a striking whether a cannon should be done. there is a legal issue, unfortunately. and the gentlelady's amendment clears that issue up.

here's the situation her amendment contemplates. the defense department lets a contract to a vendor. the vendor is performing a contract. because of a new efficiency or a drop in the price of the material, let's say that the price of food or gasoline that the vendor's using drops dramatically. the vendor offers to continue the contract at a lower price. there are rules which today would preclude the defense department from taking advantage of that offer. what mrs. dahlkemper's amendment says is that so long as the quality is preserved and so long as there least is a 15% savings at a minimum and all other rules are compiled with that the defense department can take advantage of that offer. any business in this country would jump at that opportunity. and the gentlelady has offered an amendment which makes an awful lot of sense, which would let our department of defense

operate on those sound business principles. again, her amendment does not provide for any daveiation from the rules of conflict of interest or legal procedure, but it says if there is an opportunity to achieve at least a 15% reduction and all other things are appropriate, then we should achieve that reduction. this manges imminent common sense. we thank her for -- this has imminent common sense. we thank her for this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlelady has yielded back. mr. andrews: we yield back. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlelady from pennsylvania. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 14 printed in house report 111-467.

for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina seek recognition? mr. kissell: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 14 printed in house report 111-467 offered by mr. kissell of north carolina. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1300, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. kissell, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from north carolina. mr. kissell: mr. chairman, i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. chairman, i'd like to think as a member of the house armed services committee, i'd like to thank my colleagues and our chairman, ike skelton, for bringing this much-needed legislation to the floor. i'd like to thank my friends and colleagues, howard coble from north carolina, and howard michaud from maine, for helping me sponsor this amendment. this amendment is very simple in its intent. for over 60 years, mr. chairman, the berry amendment has allowed the department of defense to buy clothing and

other apparel materials that are made in the united states when available. there has in recent years, however, become a list of clothing articles that our soldiers and military personnel are required to purchase but are not provided with by department of defense. the department of defense does provide a clothing cash allowance for this purchase, but these items that are on this list are not necessarily made in the united states. this amendment would require the g.a.o. to look at this list, to look at the possibilities and potential for making these materials in the united states which has the capacity there to make them now, to meet the demands, get with the department of defense and the department of defense within six months would be required to get back to the house armed services committee with its findings as to whether or not these materials could be made in the united states under the berry amendment. so it's a commonsense approach to expanding the amendment.

with that i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: i rise to claim time in opposition to the amendment, although i do not oppose the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. chairman. i commend the gentleman from north carolina and from maine for -- gentlemen from north carolina and maine for offering the amendment and i support it. the gentlemen rule under the law is that the defense department must buy goods and services made in the united states. there's an exception to that rule which deals with vouchers, essentially, where if there's a voucher given to a service member to buy certain goods, there's an exception to that. the gentlemen who are offering this amendment are interested in finding out whether that exception could be accomplished in a way that would protect the choice and quality for the service members while promoting the purchase of american goods and services.

i think that inquiring into that is entirely appropriate. with that i yield to my friend, the ranking member, for his comments on that. mr. conyers: i appreciate that. i also support the amendment. certainly the spirit of it. but as drafted, the g.a.o. stud -- mr. conaway: i appreciate that. i also support the amendment. certainly the spirit of it. but as drafted, the g.a.o. study requires to set aside these moneys in a tea cup. so the g.a.o. may not determine what service members bought with their clothing allowance, whether or not they were produced domestically. if they would evaluate the sufficiency of domestic supply of military uniforms then i can certainly support that. i support it with some reservations that the study, as drafted, specifically in this rule, would be less than optimal and if the sponsor would allow it to be in conference, i'd support it. i yield back to the gentleman

from new jersey. mr. andrews: i hope we can work with all the gentlemen to achieve the objective they set forward. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. kissell: i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from maine, mr. michaud. the chair: the gentleman from maine is recognized for two minutes. mr. michaud: thank you, mr. chairman. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise today in support of this amendment. this is a bipartisan effort to ensure that our troops are outfitted with american-made goods as much as possible. under current policy, clothing items that soldiers purchase with d.o.d. issued cash allowance are not subject to the berry amendment. our amendment asks g.a.o. to determine whether u.s. companies make enough of these cash allowance items to meet the demand of our troops. . the d.o.d. will report to congress on g.a.o.'s findings and indicate whether or not they will extend the berry amendment to enter these american made

products. this amendment supports united states businesses. this amendment protects and creates american jobs. and this amendment makes sure that whenever possible our troops are outfitted with goods made with pride in the u.s.a. i urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment. with that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from north carolina. mr. kissell: the -- strength of america is shown in many ways. the strength of our military and personnel and families that make up our service, but also shown in the streets of a strong economy and as many americans working as possible. this amendment would help ensure that as many americans as possible are working to make the clothing articles that our great service people use. i encourage my colleagues to vote yes on this amendment w that i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: mr. chairman, we urge a yes vote. yield back the balance of our time. the chair: the gentleman also yields back. the question then is on the

amendment from the gentleman from north carolina. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 15 printed in house report 111-467. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida seek recognition? mr. grayson: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 15, printed in house report number 111-467, offered by mr. grayson of florida. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1300, the gentleman from florida, mr. grayson, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. grayson: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to also express my thanks to the chairman of the armed services committee, the members of the committee, and the staff, and specifically and especially to congressman andrews and congressman conaway who brought this bill to the floor and allowed this to be considered for amendment. and i also want to express my thanks to members of the rules committee and to that staff for finding this amendment in order for consideration today.

this is an amendment in short that gives guidance to contracting officers that they never had before in d.o.d. concerning the question of to what extent cost or price should be considered in procurement. i ask for this support of the grayson amendment to the improve act to give legislative guidance to the defense department concerning the need to emphasize price or cost in defense procurement. under current law the d.o.d. contracting officer could be a g.s.-8, gs-9 has no authority, no guidance from this institution to determine how much should be considered for cost or price. rather the contracting officer on his or her own volition establishes an evaluation scheme before each procurement telling the offerors how their proposal will be evaluated. price or cost is only 1% of the evaluation. another more subjective factor is 99% of the evaluation scheme

n practice price or cost frequently is waived as only 25% or 33% of the evaluation scheme, and other more subjective factors remaining in the balance. the resulting waste is twofold. first, d.o.d. frequently rejects the low-cost proposal because it's own scheme dictates it does so. this alone costs the taxpayers untold billions of dollars. secondly, defense contractors who know how to build a better mousetrap that could actually save d.o.d. substantial amounts of money don't even bother to frame their proposals that way because they know that the evaluation will not turn on cost but rather will turn on factors other than cost. so don't even submit such a proposal. our amendment solves these problems by mandating that d.o.d. procurements way cost or price as 50% of the evaluation scheme or more unless the head of the agency decides otherwise. for large purchases standard commodity like fuel, hammers, etc., there is no reason not to do this. for items that are mission

critical, the head of the agency under our amendment has the discretion to weigh cost or price at less than 50%. to weigh any amount the head of the agency deems appropriate n my 20 years in government contracts procurement before i was elected to serve in congress, including my time spent fighting war profiteers in iraq, i saw substantial overuse of substantial actors. our amendment is a commonsense solution to that problem which will allow all us to say tend of the day we fought hard to fight against waste, fraud, and abuse. in defense procurement. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: mr. chairman, i rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment. i do not oppose the amendment. the chair: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to thank my friends from florida, mr. grayson and mr. hastings, for offering this amendment. it makes eminently good sense.

it says this. if a procurement officer decides to buy the product that isn't the least expensive, a couple of rules apply. first of all, price has to be at least equal to the greatest factor that's being used. can't be any less than equal. and if it is less than equal, the procurement officer has to explain why. now, this makes pretty good sense. i think most people would agree it's not always true that the least expensive item is the best. but if you think of more expensive item than the best, then you ought to explain why. think most of us would want that in the way we manage our household budgets, our businesses, or towns, local school districts. mr. grayson based upon his years of experience in this field has written an amendment that carries that idea forward. i think it's very worthy. again, i think it strikes the right balance between flexibility for the procurement

officer to make a decision that he or she thinks is the right one, but justification to the public as to why we are not spending the least amount of money on something that we are buying. i think most of our constituents would want us to presume, would want us to presume that we should get the best price available. and only if it can be demonstrated that the best price available is not the best value available should we make a different decision. i think this amendment makes very, very good sense. i would urge its adoption and reserve the balance of the time in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. mr. andrews: excuse me. before i he reserve if i could i would like to yield to my friend from pennsylvania, mr. platts, as much time as he would consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. the -- the chair: the gentleman is recognized. the gentleman from pennsylvania. mr. platts: i appreciate the gentleman yielding. i certainly rise in agreement over the maker of the amendment that we need to get the best value for the american taxpayers when it comes to the acquisition of goods and services. in fact the underlying bill we

are discussing here today is about achieving that exact goal. getting that best value. i do want to express a concern, however, that sometimes getting the best value may mean paying more for a superior product or service. especially when it comes to the complex technological requirements of the equipment of our men and women in the american armed forces. there may be legitimate cases where the cost of the price of a good or service is less important than other factors. and probably a good example of that is pretty recently the acquisition of mraps and body armor that certainly have saved lives of our courageous troops. a concern that i think we need to weigh here is just that this may be a little premature, this specific amendment, because a similar amendment was included in the 2010 national defense authorization act. during the conference a provision was added to that amendment, to that language that

requires the government accountability office to do a study to determine how often this occurs when cost is not an overriding factor primary factor. that study is due back to us in october of this year. and it seems like it would be appropriate to get that knowledge base from g.a.o. before going further with another requirement at this time. so the intent of the sponsor of the amendment, we certainly are in agreement we want to get the best value, but just believe it may be helpful to wait for g.a.o. to complete its work. with that i yield back to the gentleman. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from florida. mr. grayson: i reclaim the balance of my time. i would like to respond briefly. with regard to the first point i want to make it clear within the literal wording of this amendment no agency is ever required to choose the least cost product. all that this amendment does is say that in the evaluation scheme in order to encourage

people who are forced to think about how to save money for d.o.d. we make the commitment in general, overall, that cost or price will be considered at least as much as all the other factors combined. in addition to that, we allow the head of the agency to suspend that rule as well without any limitation in this statute. the head of the agency can determine for any item, including mission critical items, cost or price can be 40%, 30%, 5% of the evaluation factors. so i think that although the gentleman's point is well taken, that we should not ever bind the hands of the d.o.d. when the d.o.d. needs to get items that may not be the low cost item. this is an amendment that does not do that. this amendment simply says that in general under ordinary circumstances, particularly in buying volume commodities that are identical to each other, we should, in fact, make 50% of the consideration cost or price. now, i have seen procurements where, for instance, commod --

procurements, where, for instance, commodity like gasoline is being bought for d.o.d. and somehow they determine 2/3 of the evaluation factor should be something other than cost or price. sometimes we waste billions of dollars on accounting decisions like that. i think this is a rule that really needs to take place. i understand the gentleman's point concerning study that's ongoing. frankly i think if we do this now we'll save money now. if we do this later we save less money. i would rather see the money saved now particularly when we have great needs abroad and the defense budget is so great. this simple rule, commonsense rules will help us save millions. i thank the gentleman for his comments. the chair: does the gentleman yield back? mr. grayson: yes. i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: mr. chairman, i would defer until the author of the amendment would finish his argument and yield back his time. the chair: the gentleman from florida. mr. grayson: i yield back my

time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new jersey. mr. andrews: i would urge a yes vote on the amendment. i do share the concerns of my friend from pennsylvania. i believe that the language of mr. -- the amendment that's in front of us hire, i think the language of the -- in front of us here, i think that the language of the amendment addresses the concerns the gentleman raises. i think it provides sufficient flexibility. i commend the gentleman for offering it and urge a yes vote. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question then is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from florida. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. it is now in order to consider amendment number 16 printed in house report 111-467. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? mr. hare: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 16, printed in house report number 111-467, offered by mr. hare of

illinois. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 1500, the gentleman from illinois, mr. hare, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from illinois. mr. hare: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. let me begin by taking -- mr. skelton: i rise in opposition to the amendment but i do not oppose it. the chair: the gentleman rises in opposition. mr. skelton: i will not oppose it. i claim the time. the chair: without objection, the gentleman will be recognized in opposition. the gentleman from illinois now is recognized. mr. hare: thank you, mr. speaker. let me begin by taking this opportunity to thank chairman skelton and ranking member mckeon as well as chairman andrews and ranking member conaway for their leadership on the underlying bill and commitment to our nation's armed forces. the amendment before us today is one of great importance that aims to ensure level playing

field for domestic manufacturers with hopes of strengthening our economic recovery through the defense acquisition process. my amendment declares that it is the sense of congress that the department of defense should ensure full compliance throughout the acquisition process with the berry amendment and the buy american act. further, the amendment declares that the sense of congress that the department of defense not produce products made by domestic manufacturers that fail to comply with the labor standards that are set by the laws established by congress. . both the buy america act and the berry amendment help in that. we must comply with these important laws to ensure that d.o.d. procurement benefits, american families in every corner of this nation whenever possible. i think we can all agree here that we want the best equipment and items procured for our armed forces and i think we can all agree that we want to ensure that these acquisitions

adhere to the law and labor standards of the land. my amendment simply expresses and reaffirms congressional intent and aims to aid the economic recovery that our nation so desperately needs. i urge my colleagues in supporting this amendment, and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: the amendment before us is a sense of congress amendment. in essence it says we should follow the law. it reaffirms the congress' support for the buy america act and other united states labor laws. and congress has acted in recent years to make contracting officers of companies that have violated certain laws. this is a wake-up and pay attention to the law sense of congress. today, mr. chairman, we have done more than adopt more than

16 amendments and had an excellent general debate on this bill. we have exhibited in a very substantial and substantive piece of legislation that democrats and republicans can work together, that in a bipartisan effort we can make things better for the young men, young women in uniform, that we can save the taxpayer dollar and over a period of time it will be in the billions of dollars if this legislation becomes law and we certainly that it will. the only pass here with a substantial vote and pass the united states senate with a substantial vote because it's a hallmark piece of legislation. should have been done before but it wasn't, and here we are taking up legislation that will

be good for the young men, young women in uniform and save the american taxpayer dollar. and i'm really proud of the committee. eye' very proud of buck mckeon, the ranking member, for his excellent cooperation and work. rob andrews. the chairman of the panel. mike conaway for the sections related to the required audits. we've just done marvelous work. i cannot be more proud of the armed services committee and those who worked on it and as well as those who offered the very important amendments. with that, mr. chairman, i am very grateful for the work that has been done and i do urge a yes vote on this particular amendment. i yield back.

the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from illinois. mr. hare: once again, i want to thank chairman skelton for his wonderful work on this bill. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back as well. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from illinois. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. and the amendment is agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 111-467, on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 4 by mr. hall of new york, mr. number 11 by mr. connolly of virginia. the unfinished business is now the request of a recorded vote on amendment number 4 printed in house report 111-467 from the gentleman from -- by the gentleman from new york, mr.

hall, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. cleag. -- the clerk will redesignate that amendment. the clerk: amendment number 4 printed in house report 111-467 offered by mr. hall of new york. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. any member will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this intended to be a 15-minutet

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 417. the nays are two. the amendment is adopted. the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. accordingly, under the rule the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union has had under consideration house resolution -- house resolution 5013 and under the rule rises.

the speaker pro tempore: the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the house has had under consideration h.r. 5013. under the rule the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the committee amendment in a nature of a substitute. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is adopted. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a billion to amendment title 10, united states code, to provide for performance management of the defense acquisition system, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the house will be in order.

>> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? >> i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. buyer: in the present form. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: mr. buyer of indiana moves to recommit the bill, h.r. 5013, to the committee on armed services with instructions to report the same back to the house forthwith with the following amendment. at the end of title 3, add the following -- mr. skelton: mr. speaker. mr. speaker. the clerk: costs of department of defense health care contracts. a, disclosure of requirements. the secretary of defense shall require, one, an offer that smits a bid or proposal -- submits a bid or proposal. >> mr. speaker, i ask to waive the reading of the bill.

mr. skelton: i object to the dispensing of the reading. i wish it be read, please. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will read. the clerk: an offer that submits a bid or proposal in response to an invitation for bids, where a qur for proposals issued by a component of the department of defense for a health care contract is submit with the bid or proposal a disclosure of the additional costs, if any, contained in such bid or proposal associated with compliance with the patient protection and affordable care act, public law 111-148, and the health care and education reconciliation act of 2010. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will suspend. the house will be in order. members will take their conversations off the floor. retire to the cloakroom. please clear the aisles. the house is not in order. the clerk will continue to suspend.

the clerk will read. the clerk: public law 111-152, and, two, a contractor for a health care contract awarded following the date of enactment of this act, to disclose on an annual basis the cost of any incurred for such contract associated with complipes with the patient protection and affordable care act, 111-148 and the health care and education reconciliation act of 2010. public law 111-152. b, report, one, requirement, not later than april 1, 2011, and each april 1 therefore until april 1, 2016. the secretary of defense shall submit to the committee on armed services of the senate and the committee on armed services of the house of representatives a detailed report on the additional cost to the department of defense associated with compliance with the patient protection and affordable care act. public law 111-148. and the health care and

education reconciliation act of 2010. public law 111-152. two, matters covered. the report required by paragraph 1 shall include, a, the projected costs of compliance for all health care contracts awarded during the proceeding year as disclosed in a bid or proposal in accordance with subsection 1-, -- a-1. for all other health care contracts, the incurred cost of compliance for the proceeding year as disclosed in accordance with subsection a-2 and, c, any additional costs to the department of defense necessary to comply with such acts. c, health care contract defined. in this section the term health care contract means a contract in an amount greater than the simplified acquisition threshold for the acquisition of any of the following. one, medical supplies, two, health care services and administration including the services of medical personnel, three, durable medical equipment, four,

pharmaceuticals, five, health care-related information technology. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the gentleman from indiana is recognized for five minutes. mr. buyer: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. buyer: last thursday a report by the department of health and human services that's now been delivered to all of our offices, in particular the centers for medicaid and medicare services, the report has confirmed that president obama's new health care law will increase costs for taxpayers and patients. c.m.s. is estimating that the new law will increase health care spending by $311 billion. now that $311 billion figure is on page 4 but all members should note that on page 2 they are

very up front about this. quote, -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the gentleman from indiana deserves to be heard. the gentleman from indiana. mr. buyer: on page 2 it says, because of the transition effects and the fact that most coverage provisions are going to be in effect for six of the 10 years of the budget period, the cost estimates that were shown in the memorandum do not represent a full 10-year cost of the legislation. so even though they're saying that it's going to be -- they're projecting $311 billion, please understand that this is not really a true 10-year time frame. so, from policymakers, why i want to this bring this to everyone's attention, please, members look at this report, look at this report, all of us whom have responsibilities in

health initiative need to understand as policymakers what will be the impact upon our areas of responsibility. of the $311 billion, i look at this, of the federal expenditure for only the six-year time frame is going to be about $251 billion. as you know, the department of defense is one of the largest precurrers of health care goods and services in the country. i'm not even talking about d.a. we're only going to focus here on d.o.d. because of jurisdictional matters. by caring for our wounded warriors and their families, the pentagon strives to support our brave wounded soldiers, sailors, and marines. this includes medical care for our injured troops but also our active duty military, their families and the retirees as well. in order to provide that level of care, d.o.d. purchases from a network of managed care support organizations, health care professionals, manufacturers and information technology

providers. and what c.m.s. has made clear to all of us in this report is that this network is heavily impacted by the new health care law. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the gentleman from indiana. mr. buyer: thank you, mr. speaker. let me remind my colleagues, c.m.s. is not a partisan group. c.m.s. formerly known as health care financing administration or hipaa, is very much a part of president obama's administration. so if c.m.s. estimates that there's a greater cost, i'm sure these are likely to be conservative estimates. greater costs are not something that the pentagon is prepared to absorb. as many of you are aware, the department's overall expenditures for health care are rising rapidly. secretary gates testified in the fall that the increased costs are, quote, beginning to eat us alive, end quote. so if there are direct or secondary effects of the

president's health care program, the only way to cover the costs are to raise the premiums to beneficiaries, families and retirees or to eat further into d.o.d.'s ability to support the needs of our men and women in uniform. this is not what we want to do. this is why we must understand the impact of the president's new health care law on d.o.d. we know that the health care law includes new fees on manufacturers of brand name prescription drugs. we sell to the federal health care programs, including the department of defense. c.m.s. states in last thursday's report, quote, we anticipate these fees will generally be passed through to health care consumers in the form of higher drug prices. that means a pass-through to d.o.d. we need to know and understand the impact of those increased fees upon you us -- upon us. section 9011 of the president's health care law already requires the department of veterans' affairs to conduct a study of

the impact of the increased cost imposed by the new law on the veterans' health care. this includes reporting on the cost of the fees associated on brand name prescription drugs and medical devices from the manufacturers. it only seems reasonable to me, so that if we supported that provision for the v.a., as many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle did, we should do the very same thing with d.o.d. and that's what i'm asking in this motion to recommit. the pentagon is slated to spend $56 billion on the next procurement round of tricare contracts. this amendment simply asks for d.o.d. to identify through their acquisition process any additional costs as a result of the president's new health care law and report that to congress. i urge a yes vote on the motion to recommit. we're asking for transparency. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana yields back his time.

mr. skelton: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded not to traffic the well when other members are speaking. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? mr. skelton: i claim time in opposition, though i do not oppose the amendment and i yield to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: mr. speaker, -- >> mr. speaker, the house is not in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the gentleman is correct. the house will be in order. mr. andrews: mr. speaker -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will continue to spend. mr. andrews: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: members will clear the center aisle, all of the aisles, and take their seats. the gentleman deserves to be heard. the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, we would urge members to vote yes on this motion to recommit because the language of the recommit does what the gentleman's argument

doesn't do. the language of this argument says we should have full, accurate transparency about the cost of the new health care bill as it applies to defense contracts. in other words, we ought to know the facts. we agree with that. with all due respect to the gentleman's argument, the facts were kind of missing. here's what the facts are. the report that he references from c.m.s. i would take due note of the fact that the m. in c.m.s. means medicare. here's what the report said. before the president signed the health care law, the medicare trust fund was due to run out of money in 2017. because the president signed the health care law the medicare trust fund will live for at least 12 more years. the fact is that report said

that future forecasts of health care costs are, to quote the report, only a prediction, difficult to ascertain, subject to interpretation. well, here's some interpretations that the american public are beginning to see. when sons and daughters under the age of 26 years old can be covered on their parents' policy, the american people support that. when someone cannot be turned away from buying insurance or have their premiums raised bazz they had breast cancer -- because they had breast cancer or asthma, the american people support that. when an insurance company cannot cancel someone's policy when they're on the way to the operating room after they paid premiums for years, the american people support that. we embrace and support the idea of learning the facts about the

health care bill. that's what the amendment says. we support the idea of speaking the truth about the health care bill, that's what all members of the house should do, that's what the american people are entitled to do. vote yes on the motion to recommit and vote yes on the underlying bipartisan bill. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri yields back his time. all time having been yielded back, without objection the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion to recommit. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. the question is on passage of the -- >> a request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana. mr. buyer: i'd like a recorded vote. alall those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having

arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their vote by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20rks the chair will reduce to five minutes the time of any electronic vote on the question of passage of the bill. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 419, the nays are one. without objection, the motion is adopted, without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? mr. skelton: mr. speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the house on the motion to recommit, i hereby report back h.r. 5013 to the house with that amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. skelton of missouri. mr. skelton: i ask that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without

objection. the question is on adoption of the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: united states code, to provide for performance management of the defense acquisition system and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is now on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the opinion of the chair, the ayes -- in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. mr. skelton: mr. speaker. on that i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote

will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this wi,lb"huhu $s's ( s's)p$su hu

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 417, the nays are three. the bill is passed.

without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri rise? mr. skelton: i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and in which to insert extraneous materials on the record on the bill just passed. the speaker pro tempore: without the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. would members please take their would members please take their conversations off the floor.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain oneman minute requests -- one-minute request he's. -- requests. for what purpose does the gentlelady from florida rise? ms. ros-lehtinen: to address the house for one minute, revigse and, tend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentlelady is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much, mr. speaker. i'd like to extend my congratulations to the university of miami researchers on their recent discovery that will lead toward a new understanding of alizymer's

disease. university of miami researchers identified a gene that appears to double a person's risk of developing late onset alzheimer's. alzheimer's as we all know is a debilitating disease that impacts five million americans. as a daughter of a mother with alzheimer's disease i know how painful this disease can be for both the individual and the family. i would like to thank director margaret advance and all of the staff aft john p. huffman institute for human genomics at the university of miami medical school for their hard work and dedication to the valuable research. the university of miami will continue to take steps to improve our knowledge about alzheimer's so that families will not have to feel the pain of watching their loved ones being slowly ravaged by this terrible affliction. thank you, mr. speaker, for the time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the house will be in order. will members please take their conversations off the floor? for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? mr. moran: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. moran: mr. pomeroy and i have helped communities who would be disconnected except for their short line and regional freight rail. our bill which extends 45-g short line rail tax credit is supported by 259 of our colleagues. unfortunately for kansas businesses that dependent rail service, the 35-g credit expired last year. as a result, small railroads like the kansas and oklahoma railroad, the kyle railroad and the nebraska, kansas and nebraska railroad are unable to maximize their infrastructure investments to best serve their customers. the 35-g tax credit generates nearly seven million

good-paying track record hours each year. it helps could he opts in rural kansas to move grain to food processors in kansas city and to manufacturers in wichita to move their goods to market. i rise to express my hope that we will move a path toward to continue the economic development and sound transportation policy fostered by the tax provisions contained in h.r. 1132. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> mr. speaker, request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, i received a letter from a member of the pennsylvania state house explaying a resolution he has introduced to stop the federal government for imposing unfunded mandates on the state. the resolution cites the urban institute is estimates pennsylvania will see an additional 818,000 people eligible for medicaid under the health care reform law. the cost of the commonwealth of

that additional burden totals $2.31 billion between 2014 and 2019. some 12% of pennsylvania now is enrolled in medicaid making welfare entitlement one of the top spending categories in the budget. the resolution states that on september 9, 2009, the president promised that health legislation being considered by congress would not add to the federal deficit but was silent about states baring the weight of unfunded mandates. the proposed resolution asks that every member be given a coppy. we already have a law against unfunded mandate, but that did not stop the democrat majority from adding a huge burden on the states with this new law. i agree with this resolution, that will encourage pennsylvania legislators to support it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, a bipartisan group of members representing all the border states today called for armed

national guard troops at the border. our border state governors have been specifically asking for troops for over a year. violence is escalating. law enforcement lacks the manpower and equipment they need to protect the people on the border. national guard troops must be armed and sent to the border with clear and concise rules of engagement that allow them to defend themselves if fired upon. 75 american citizens were murdered in juarez, mexico, just last year. last month, an arizona rancher was shot dead on his own property. his murderer was tracked to the border. assaults against border patrol agents have increased 16% so far this year. border patrol agent rojas was murdered in july execution style. our border states need help. the federal government has been missing in action. national guard troops should be sent to the border to help the border patrol and local this was protect the safety and security of the people. and that's just the way it is. i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: are there further one-minute requests? the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. culberson of texas for today until 3:15 p.m. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into the following members may be permitted to address the house, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. mr. moran for may 5, myself, mr. poe, for may 5, and mr. jones for may 5. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from california rise? ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into the

following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. ms. woolsey, california. mr. davis, illinois. ms. kaptur, ohio. mr. defazio, oregon. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. each. mr. poe of texas. mr. poe: thank you, mr. speaker. i bring you news from the third front. that being the southern border of the united states with mexico. the first front, of course, is that engagement in iraq, the second in afghanistan, the

third on our violent sorpe border. people are coming -- southern border. people are coming into the united states from all over the world through the country of mexico because mexico has a vast coastline in the atlantic and the pacific. people go to mexico, sneak into mexico and then sneak into the united states through our southern border. and part of those people are coming in are called drug cartels. they're coming in to sell narcotics, a profit of over $40 billion a year to the drug cart tells -- cartels that smuggle dope into our country. here's a photograph that was taken in zapata county, texas. it's down on the texas-mexico border. it's a small county and this is an r.v. park near the border. but this happens to be a helicopter, turns out it's a russian-made helicopter, with mexican markings on it. it's about a mile and a half to two miles into the united

states across the border. now, the border with mexico and texas is not a land border. there's a river there. so there's no way that somebody could be mistaken when they accidentally, they say, come into the united states. we don't know the intentions of this helicopter. two weeks before this photograph was taken, other photographs were taken of either this helicopter or a similar helicopter, once again, coming into the united states, intentions unknown. are these folks guarding a shipment of drugs, are they working with the drug cartels, are they looking for bad guys, or what are they doing? we don't know. the problem is the border is porous. the southern border of the united states is porous with that border with mexico, and the violence in mexico is escalating and, of course, it comes into the united states. there are 14 border counties in texas that border mexico. i recently talked to the this was of those counties on the same day and asked them this question -- how many people in your local jail are foreign nationals charged with crimes that are not immigration

violations? and the total number was 37%. that's right. 37% of the people in border county jails in texas are foreign nationals charged with misdemeanors and felonies. that's a lot of folks. that cost somebody a lot of money. and that is because the crime problem goes back and forth across the border. it's in texas and it's also in mexico and it's because the borders are porous. we have down on the border with mexico the border patrol. they're doing a marvelous job as they possibly can. but they need some help. here's a photograph, mr. speaker, that was also recently taken. this is a border patrol vehicle. it has been improvised. it's a pickup truck. they call these things the war wagons. now, why do they do that? because maybe they think they're in a war zone down at the border. there is mesh steel wire across the windshield, across all of the windows.

there's even a mesh cage that protects the lights, the emergency lights on top of the vehicle. the question is, why do they have that stuff on their border patrol vehicles? well, you see when they patrol the border with mexico, people who wish to come into the united states illegally pelt rocks at our border patrol. and so they have to protect themselves and their vehicles by putting this wiring, this cage around their own vehicle. now, somebody threw rocks at a police officer in the united states, normally those people get arrested and go to jail. but it doesn't seem like that is what is occurring, and so they have to protect themselves. this is just one example of the violence that is occurring. border patrol in the tucson area, assaults against them this year is up 300% from last year. that's right. assaults on our agents who are trying to protect the border protect us. so we have to do more than that. we have to support the border patrol, the this was that work along the border and we have to do what the governors of some

of those states asked for and that's send the national guard down to the border. we protect the borders of other nations. why don't we protect our own? we don't know. i think it's politics. and it's time that we have the moral will to secure the dignity of the united states. it's about border security, it's about national security. it's not an issue of immigration. it's an issue of whether or not people can come into the united states legally or illegally. and we must have the moral will to keep the criminal gangs, the drug cartels, the human smugglers out of the united states. they know our borders are porous. people in other countries know our borders are porous. they go through mexico and come into the united states. the federal government's been missing in action. it's time that they show up on the border, send the national guard to support our troops, support the -- support the border this was and support the border patrol, and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise?

without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: thank you, mr. speaker. first of all, i'd like to thank the gentlewoman from california, ms. woolsey, for allowing me to go ahead of her in speaking tonight. mr. speaker, in a recent editorial praising arizona for enacting immigration laws, they said the following, quote, there are 460,000 illegal immigrants in arizona, a number that increases daily, facing an undo burden on the state's schools, hospitals and law enforcement. arizona has a window seat to an illegal invasion, an and on the escalating violence in mexico that has put american lives and society at risk. president obama calls arizona's tough new law irresponsible and misguided, but it wouldn't be necessary if the federal government would fulfill its responsibility to secure the border. we are a nation of immigrants,

legal immigrants. we are also a nation of laws that 70% of arizonans and most americans want to see enforced. the first duty of the federal government is to protect the rights, property and lives of u.s. citizens, end quote. i couldn't agree more. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. ms. woolsy of california. -- ms. woolsey of california. ms. woolsey: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this body took an important step today by passing the improve acquisition act, which will bring badly needed reform to the defense procurement process. the pentagon, of course, is legendary for bureaucratic inefficiencies, outright corruption in its purchasing practices. remember the $645 toilet seat that the navy bought back in the 1980's, remember our soldiers in iraq sifting through scraps for makeshift body armor. for too long, mr. speaker, the

pentagon has been the irresponsible teenager who gets a ridiculously generous allowance, loses part of it and then spends the rest on junk food. with this new bill, though, mom and dad will begin to exercise some oversight over that allowance. given the size of the d.o.d. budget and the nature of its mission, it is about time. it's remarkable that up until now there has been no effective performance metrics system to ensure that taxpayers are getting value for their defense dollars. we're living through a time, mr. speaker, when nearly every american family is tightening its belt, making sure that every dollar it spends is on something it truly needs. we owe it to these families to ensure that the government agency charged with keeping them safe is doing the same. as pleased as i am with the passage of the improve act, i can't help but think that we're nibbling around the edges of a

much, much larger problem. the issue is not just a managial one of how the pentagon -- managerial one of how the pentagon goes about its actions. the thing is about the overall defense policies and budgetary priorities. for example, we continue to spend billions of dollars every year on sacred cow weapons systems that were designed for a bygone era. finally, last year we cut off funding for the f-22 raptor designed to neutralize the next generation soviet plane. i guess it took almost 20 years to figure out there's been no generation of soviet plane because there has been no generation of the soviet union. but we're still throwing money at the b- 2 osprey, a plane so unnecessary and wasteful that even former vice president cheney was trying to kill it as

late as the 1980's, when he was secretary of defense. according to our analysis at the congressional progressive caucus, we can save $60 billion, at least, a year, by eliminating such cold war relics. and, mr. speaker, then there's the biggest ticket item of all. purportedly keeping us safe, but actually spending us into bankruptcy and undermining our national security interests. i'm referring to the ongoing wars in afghanistan and iraq. every day, at a predicted price tag of around $1 trillion, we are sending american soldiers to die for a strategy that is a moral outrage and a practical failure. for a fraction of the cost, we could take a smarter approach by expanding poor countries' capacity to provide for their own people that means more resources for democracy

promotion. physical infrastructure. human capital development. etc., etc. that would be the way to fight terrorism, with compassion, not aggression, using diplomacy, not destruction, by investing rather than invading. so let's do more than streamline procurement because, mr. speaker, if we overhaul the way we go about protecting america and we redefine what it means to provide for the common defense as the constitution instructs us to do, we will do the right thing and the right thing will be starting by bringing our troops home. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. mr. jones from north carolina. >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the

gentlewoman is recognized for five minutes. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you so much, madam speaker. i rise today with a wonderful mission to recognize a local student, alison novak. alison has recently been named as the top outstanding school youth volunteer for the year for the miami-dade county public school system. our superintendent of schools presented her with this impressive award at miami's jungle island earlier this month. as a senior at miami beach senior high school, alison has volunteered in numerous capacities. she has served as the president of the miami beach chapter of the junior state of america. she has served as producer for the nonprofit group 1308 productions. she's also known for her work as part of skynews and the creator of the rock the vote

concerts an shows in our area. i can personally attest she was a fabulous host to my recent congressional visit to miami beach high. as an elected public official, i understand the great effort and personal sacrifice that comes along with trying to make a difference in our community. the time alison has spent and the care she's demonstrated are truly beyond her years. all of us in south florida are fortunate to have someone like alison who gives so generously of her time and energy to our area. this award is yet another shining example of how one individual's hard work can make a difference. alison is an inspirational and energetic student leader who has created positive results for her school and our greater -- greater community. alison's public service has also been recognized by organizations such as voice of america raredyow, as well as many other media and civic groups.

this dedication to civic engagement stems from alison's family which has a legacy of public service. alison is the daughter of surfside mayor emeritus paul novak he served as mayor for six terms and is himself also a graduate of miami beach senior high school, the high tides. also, alison's grandmother, mickey novak, served as surfside's vice mayor, as president of women in government service, and as treasurer of several educational and civic organizations, including the p.t.a. and hadasa. it is wonderful to see alison continuing in the family tradition of giving back to our community. her hard work is fundamental in making our community better for years to come. with the support of wonderful parents like paul and denise, i am certain that alison enjoys a

strong family network of support and guidance that is needed to accomplish so much for this young woman who is soon to be off going to college. alison's steadfast commitment to public service is a testament to her character and her family. she's a wonderful example of today's young adults who have the will to effect positive change in our community. alison will soon graduate from miami beach senior high school this june, as an exemplary student who has been a credit to her school and our community. next semester, she will be joining the proud ranks of students attending the university of miami, go canes, and pursuing a degree in communications. again, i congratulate alison for her recent award as top outstanding school youth volunteer. i also wish her the best as she makes the transition to college

life and i look forward to hearing from her about her continued work in making this community an even better place in which to live. i know that alison will continue to benefit our area in her volunteer work and will be a magnificent addition to the university of miami team. con gladge -- congratulations alison, and congratulations to the novak family. thank you, madam speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. mr. davis of illinois is recognized. mr. davis: thank you, madam speaker. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. davis: madam speaker, i take this opportunity to pay tribute to one of the most accomplished, most engaged, and most effective social workers that this country has ever known. dr. dorothy height. following in the footsteps and tradition of mayor -- of mary

mccloud bethune, dr. height became renowned for her role in social justice in roles as educator and social activist. she was born in 1912 the same year as my father, and therefore experienced and endured all the social characteristics of her childhood. nevertheless, she attended college at new york university and did post-graduate work at columbia university and the new york school of social work. working as a social worker, dr. height came into contact with the problems and conditions of the average citizen, or common man. these experiences and understandings guided her thinking, ignited her passions and kept her going until just a few days ago. dr. height joined the national down soifl negro women and became its voice and leader. she served as the national president of delta sigma theta incorporated for 11 years.

she was oh the only woman engaged in leadership of the united civil rights organization with dr. martin luther king, whitney young jr., a. philip randolph, roy wilkins, and john lewis. when the movement subsided, dr. height's work continued. she was energetic, went everywhere and to everything. she developed women by serving as their mentor and friend. two women i know and worked with in chicago are miss rosie bean and ms. annetta wilson. both of them were willing to call themselves desipeles of dr. dorothy height. she was an unbelievable dedicated woman whose life was the true essence of living. i think the poet may have had dr. height in mind when he penned "house by the side of the road," when he wrote, there are her met toads that live in

the place of their self-content. there are souls like stars that dwell apart in a firmment. there are pioneer souls that blaze the pass where highways never ran. but met let's me live by the side of the road and be a friend to man. let me live in a house by the side of the road where the race of men go by the men who are good and the men who are bad, as good and as bad as i, i would not sit in the scorners' seat nor hurl the cynics' ban. let me live in the house by the side of the road and be a friend to man. i see from my house by the side of the road by the side of the highway of life, the men who trust with the ardor of hope, the men who have strife, but i turn not away from their smiles and tears, both parts of an infinite plan. let me live in my house by the side of the road and be a friend to man. i know there are meadows ahead,

that the road passes on through the long afternoon and stretches away to the night and still i rejoice when the travelers rejoice and weep the strangers that moan, now live in my house by the side of the road, like a man who dwells alone. let me live in my house by the side of the road where the race of men go by. they are good, they are bad, they are weak, they are strong, wise, foolish, so am i. then why should i sit in the scorners' seat or hurl the cynics' ban? let me live in my house by the side of the road, like dr. dorothy height, and be a friend to man. i thank you, madam speaker and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. is mr. moran of kansas here? ms. kaptur of ohio. mr. burton of indiana. mr. defazio of oregon.

mr. forbes of virginia. mr. dent of pennsylvania. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from missouri, mr. akin, is recognized for of minutes as the designee of the minority leader. -- for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. akin: thank you, madam speaker. i appreciate being recognized as we are on occasion, on wednesday, after the house business -- the main part of

the business is closed, we have an opportunity to take a look at various topics and subjects, usually we have chosen subjects of significant importance to americans, ones that affect everybody's lives. and it might seem odd in that we have already passed the government takeover of health care bill that we would go back to that bill, but i think there is continuing information that is being released that a lot of people may not have known about when the bill was passed. additional facts and figures, which are at a minimum quite disturbing. the facts and figures that i thought would be important to talk a little bit about today are the facts and figures that come from the president's own people, the center for medicare and medicaid services. these are people the administration has chosen, they are a group of people who are taking a good look at the bill that was proposed and has been

passed, what its implications are, and some of the financial facts. so this is something that was actually approved by the obama administration, this was not the house congressional budget office which is viewed as being a fairly bipartisan and has its own numbers. but these facts have just come out recently, we have to assume the president knew them and the facts are in flat contradiction in sharp contradiction, in complete disagreement, with statements made by the president himself and so i think we need to take a look at some of these things, particularly there was the claim in the health care bill that we have to bend the cost curve down because the numbers, financially, for our nation we can't continue to have increasing health care costs. everything was centered on the fact that we're spending too much on health care. now, first of all, of course, the premise of that is odd.

if you're a sick person, maybe you're not spending too much on health care, maybe you spent the amount you needed to get well. but we're taking a look when that comment is made more frequently to how much money the government is spending on health care, particularly medicare and medicaid. so we're saying government runs medicare and medicaid and they're spending too much so instead what the government needs to do is take it all over. that's a little bit of a jump in reasoning to say that that's a good idea. but the whole thing was sold on, we're going to bend the cost curve down so medicare or medicaid, also health care in america, will cost less, and here we have the obama's hand-picked center for medicare and medicaid services saying that in fact this bill is going to increase the cost of health care. that's kind of odd because the logic for doing it was we're going to decrease it and now the administration's own people are saying we're going to increase it.

we're going to take a look at some of the different promises, quotes and comments and i'm joined by a good friend of mine from pennsylvania, i'll introduce things a little bit and we'll get him to talk about this, hopefully we'll have some other guests on the floor tonight. tonight. . it's obviously going to be complicated and shouldn't really surprise us when we see this and go, oh my goodness, this is going to be expensive. is this going to save money. the answer now from the obama administration's people, this isn't going to save money, so this is one of those things just to get a sense of how complex the changes people are

asking our offices all the time, when is the going -- when is this going to take place. those of us in congress lose our health care coverage with this bill. we're asking ourselves, when do we no longer have any health insurance anymore and where do we have to go to buy it? . how is it the federal government is going to take over 1/6 of the u.s. economy and somehow make it more efficient than what we have right now? the answer to the matter is, they're not, they're not. the authority appointed by the obama administration against this is not going to be more efficient but more expensive. there are all kinds of promises we heard about. it's important to go back and look at those things. and my good friend, congressman thompson from pennsylvania, may remember some of these quotes if you want to jump in here at any time. first, this is one that the

president said. if you are one of the hundreds of millions of americans that has insurance through your job, nothing in this plan will require you to change the coverage or the doctor you have. this doesn't pass the laugh test. you can say, first if you already have a health insurance policy, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change. well, well, for how long? well, until the bill goes into effect, then it will take you to change. this is something here. particularly the people who are going to be cynical when they read this or the people on medicare advantage. i don't know how many hundreds of thousands of people on medicare advantage. you will have half a billion dollars taken out of -- $500

billion being taken out of medicare advantage. and obviously take that money out, then the people on that plan are not going to have the same plan. there are about 50% of the seniors in medicare advantage aren't going to have the same thing. my good friend, g.t., i would love to hear your comments. i want to contrast back and forth. the president says something and it ain't necessarily so. mr. thompson: i thank my good friend from missouri for leading this discussion. it's an important discussion as we look at the consequences of this health care bill that's been passed. mr. akin: do you think we really know the consequences. mr. thompson: when we look at a bill -- the original senate bill was more than 2,000 pages. we have a manager's amendment, reconciliation on top of that.

talking close to 4,000 pages. now the bureaucrats will have to take that bill and put it into regulatory language. and so until we're done, we may not know -- certainly not for months and maybe years everything that's in here. and it comes down to one word. it's credibility. you know, to say one thing, words one way and your action is completely opposite, it lacks credibility. and we shouldn't be surprised. we saw that going back. stretch our imaginations and don't have to go that far back, with the stimulus bill where we said or the president said we had to do the stimulus bill and said we have to do this stimulus bill because if we don't, unemployment may go over 8%. so we spent $878 billion in the stimulus bill. and in the end, what did we get?

we're at 10% or just under 10% unemployment at this point. mr. akin: we're getting this radical -- one statement says one thing and yet, when you look at it, it's exact opposite. mr. thompson: and actions as we know well -- mr. akin: the promise was, if you don't pass the stimulus bill, this was a year ago, you could have unemployment above 8%. i wish we hadn't passed it, you know, because our unemployment now is 10%. and you were on the floor here i recall about a year ago saying it wasn't going to work and a lot of people said it wasn't going to work. we learned from history, henry morgan thaw, secretary of the treasury, and said this spending of money doesn't fix this unemployment and recession. it just doesn't work. after trying it for eight years,

it wasn't that we were rocket scientists, but we learned something from history and we get this one promise that if you don't do this, unemployment is going to go as high as 8% but instead we went to 10% when we spent $800 billion. that's amazing. that is one of the promises. but you're right on that. mr. thompson: one of the premises i have lived my life on, best predictor of future performance is past performance. there is a great divide between what's being said and some of the promises that were made in order to get this bill pushed through congress and what we see now. and what we have now is the reality as we take our time and to look through this bill. mr. akin: here's one that might be of interest to you. i have a couple of examples. this is a quote from senator barack obama.

and it's on 10/4/08. talking about his health care proposal. we will start by reducing premiums as much as $2,500 a family. i'm looking that because the expenses on the health care, we go through a lot of money with a bunch of kids in health care. if you're going to reduce my premiums by $2,000 500 a family, i would say that's a great promise if it's any good. and yet, after making this promise, not only the congressional budget office, which is our bean counters, republican and democrat been counters in the house and senate, and then this center for medicare and medicaid services, which is the administration, that is obama's bean counters are saying -- he says it's going

to reduce the premiums by as much as $250,000. both of these offices are saying that the insurance premiums will increase under the obamacare, not decrease by $250,000 but increase by -- i think they're saying -- let's see, americans who buy their own health insurance plans will pay an average $2,100 more a year. if you are going out and buying your health insurance, it's going to increase by $2,100. that's a different story. that gets people upset. we are joined by a doctor, and get a medical opinion on this subject. mr. roe: one of the things we are trying to do here, as i go back and think through the last 15 months and remember when this

debate first began, what is the problem you are trying to fix. we had a 40-plus million uninsured people in am two, the costs were going up faster than inflation. the uninsured and rising health care costs had to be addressed and there are many ways you can address this. and i brought to the table 17 years of experience with a failed plan in tennessee. and -- mr. akin: let me just stop and i want to mention, there may be some people joining us that aren't always here on wednesday evening, you are not just a member of congress, not just a former doctor, but also from the state of tennessee. and the state of tennessee is one of two states that tried this obamacare kind of approach to health care, right? and your experience in the state of tennessee was, did it

decrease premiums and decrease the cost of insurance? that's what was promised by the president when he says, we're going to start by reducing premiums by as much as $250,000 a family. did you believe that? mr. roe: no. one of the reasons is because of the practical experience i have had over 16 years that had shown that was not the case. what we thought was, back in the 1990's, we had a lot of uninsured people and asked for a medicaid exemption and we got that in tennessee to form a managed care plan and the idea ms. wasserman schultz: that we were going to have various plans to compete to help hold health care costs down. what happened was over a 10-year period of time, our costs tripled in this p plan. mr. a costs tripled. mr. roe: in 10 years.

and i will pr now right now, what's go to go happen plan is what happened to . i have seen this picture before. and what will happen that youave -- and we have a business, congressman akin in west tennessee that's a large plan. and remember that the federal government will determine1 government will determine1 e in front you. federal wha h% have,ent adequate. $ their coverage, they pay the $2,000 fine per individual, it will save that company $40 million.

mr. akin: you've got a company here and the company is being faced with some choices now. their first choice is just take their employees and dump them into -- is it the state or federal medicare -- mr. roe: the federal exchange. mr. akin: you could unload your employees on the federal government and if you do that, how much money does it save you? ho employees? ou $40 million.o mr. roe: large company. mr. akin: you could make $40 million by dumping your employees on to this plan? mr. roe: that's correct. why wouldn't thaappened in tennessee. what happened in tennessee is this, that employer saw they people who ivate health insura

including med of the right there in plan p so guess what happened to private businesses? their rates shifted and you've got added costs added to it. that's where your $2,000 comes as cost shifting. mr. akin: doctor, you're dreat at explaining this stuff. you've got a certain number of people kicking into the system and paying for medicare. all of a sudden you create a government incentive, and now the government is picking it up, guess who's picking up the bill. the people still buying private insurance.

when you take these people out, the company is not paying for them anymore, now the private insurance guys, their cost goes way up to compensate for these other people because the government is not paying enough to cover the insurance. so the government puts in 50-cents on the dollar, somebody has to make up the other 50 cents. guess who it's going to be? some other poor sucker out there. mr. roe: what's going to happen, in a few years, in our state, it took five or six years for us to recognize we had a big problem on our hands. what happens is then us, the politicians, are going to step up and say, see, the private sector failed. we told you it would fail this system we have, congressman akin, is designed to fail and it will. mr. akin: so we're designed to fail because if you get the private system to fail, guess who is going to end up having to run the whole system. mr. roe: you got it. mr. akin: the federal government.

what a treat. every time we take a look at this thing, no matter which way you poke at it, you come to the same conclusion. there's one solution to this problem, repeal this silly bill that we passed. it's a disaster. congressman thompson from pennsylvania, please join us. mr. thompson: i thank my good friend from missouri. the other part of that is what they are paying, as my good friend, dr. roe from tennessee, talked about, how medicare pays today less than cost, commercial insurance on the average nationally pays 130% of costs. there's only one -- there's two reasons for that. it all comes to the government, government pays medicare 80 cents to 90 cents on the dollar, if we're lucky. medicare insurance only pays 40% to 60% of every dollar. the president's own agency, the center for medicare and medicaid servicings, in the actuarial report, taking the

people in medicare and taking the brightest in best -- and best in determining the effect of this bill, talk about the impact on hospitals. right in that bill, i'm going to quote the medicare cut could drive 15% of hospitals and other institutional providers into the red and quote, possibly jeopardizing access, end quote to care for seniors. that's a significant risk. background was working in rehabilitation therapy as a manager in rural hospitals. in most rural hospitals and frankly, underserved urban hospitals, in my experience if they're having a banner year, make a margin of 1% to 4%. out of that 1% to 4% we hope they get cost of living increases because we want them to keep the best and brightest and be able to recruit and retain, and that's a challenge when it comes to recruiting health care professionals.

mr. akin: just interrupting for a minute, from a businessman's viewpoint, my background is engineering and business, when a business is run 1g% to 4%, that's like somebody, if you think about an iceberg that has to breathe, to keep its lips above water, you don't have much margin before you go into the red. mr. thompson: you know you're looking at difficulty recruiting and retaining professionals, especially in rural and some urban areas. when you look at the escalating cost of tort insurance, which our colleagues across the aisle refuse to deal with, that's $39 billion every year that's going to malpractice insurance. you have hospitals under pressure to continually invest in new technology.

we want them to have the best technology. mr. akin: are you suggesting with this new proposal, because of the tremendous pressure that's going to be placed on those hospitals, they're going to be basically starting to close? mr. thompson: not only am i suggesting that, but the president's agency, the centers for medicare and medicaid services, put that in writing. they're say -- mr. akin: they're saying this new bill, among other things, will close hospitals. mr. thompson: they're estimating up to 15%. there's something -- mr. akin: there's something here that seems ironic to the extreme. we passed a mass'6" government takeover of health care -- a massive government takeover of health care, the people the president and his administration chose to study and take a look at the effect on medicare and medicaid on this -- of this proposal says it's going to close hospitals. yet it's going to hire 16,000 new i.r.s. agents to look at

the plan. you'd think you'd hire more nurses and doctors, but no, more i.r.s. agents. mr. roe: i want to comment on that right now before i have to go on blood pressure medication. mr. akin: which is brought on by the bill. mr. roe: brought on by the bill. we have something as ridiculous to hire 16,000 i.r.s. agents to make sure you check a box that you bought health insurance, you could take that money and it could provide care to people in tennessee. that's absurd to hire people to check a box when you could provide health care for pregnant women, and the gentleman from pennsylvania brings up a great point for rural hospitals. if you look at the demographics, they tend to be older and less affluent. those smaller hospitals that

don't get the more affluent people have a higher percentage of medicare and medicaid patients. that means there's more pressure on them, you lower those reimbursements, there's a real chance they'll be in financial trouble. i yield back. mr. akin: we're joined a friend of -- by a friend of mine, blaine luetkemeyer, somebody who is also going to share a couple of his ideas on this whole ridiculous situation with this government takeover of health care. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, congressman akin. it's good to be with you. i had a number of visitors over the last several days talking about the health care bill. it's amazing, people are now starting to sit down and look at the bill, trying to figure out what kind of implications it has for themselves, their business, their families, whatever it may be. followup on the gentleman from pennsylvania's comment, i remember yesterday, i had a group of rural hospital folks

in, not only is it going to affect the hospital, it's going to affect the doctors from the standpoint that the payment schedule can't be made whole so that they can make enough money to keep their doors open. the private practices will be a thing of the past. you're looking at them all becoming employees of hospitals or the government chmbing one is survive, the last one standing here. so it's really a challenging time for not only the medical professionals but also the businesses as well. mr. akin: i appreciate your bringing that point up. what you're realing saying is there are a whole lot of question marks out there. it's like, it almost seems like to me, coming from our state of missouri, it's almost like maybe you fall off your roof and you land on the ground you know you hit pretty hard, you're an old geezer like me you pick yourself up and say, i wonder if anything is broken and you start reaching around to see, what's the damage.

now people are kind of asking the question, what's the damage going to be? you really hit that nail on the head. go, ahead, i didn't mean to interrupt you. mr. luetkemeyer: again, as you talk to the individual, and each individual industry is different, but i know the fast food industry, i was talking to a gentleman who has 25 fast food franchises from morse all the way to south dakota he said it's going to cost him -- from missouri all the way to south dakota, it's going to cost him $20,000 per location, and some of those don't make $20,000 because they're small towns or small locations. before the bill passed, he was looking to not only figure out how to make more dollars, he was looking to expand his operation, he was looking to purchase eight other units from another fast food franchise unit and build four additional ones. now he says because of this extra cost, i not only am not going to expand the operation, i'm probably going to have to contract. i can't afford.

he's looking at half a million in additional cost, he did nothing wrong, didn't change his business model, but all of a sudden now under this bill, he's got another half a million dollar bill -- mr. akin: you're talking about a bill that's driving unemployment worse. it's going to create unemployment is what you're saying. that's what this small business owner says. in other words, you're saying he's making enough money as it is now to open additional franchises but with the cost of this bill, it pushes him under water and he says, i've got to close some rather than open some. that's going to cost jobs. why in the world are we doing this when we've got an unemployment problem? mr. luetkemeyer: we're not aabout providing health care in this bill, it's about a government takeover of 1/6 of the economy, it's about control. they want to control that portion of the economy. again, i've got another friend of mine, own there's manufacturing plants around the country, looking to open a

fourth, but with the uncertainty of our economy, with bills like the health care bill, cap and trade, the stimulus package, additional tax increases that are sitting on the back burner right now he says, i'm not going to open this business, i'm not going to build a new manufacturing plant. i had a group, to bring another business example, i had a group of bankers in yesterday, i asked them, how is your money supply? got plenty of funds to loan out and what's your loan demand? they said, we have funds to loan out, but demand is lukewarm right now, but the last five guys that came in wanted to borrow, they decided at the last minute, we're not going to expand. we don't want to do this. because it's -- we're going to endanger our whole operation if we go down this road system of they actually backed off and as a result, look at how many jobs were not -- we're not providing or jobs we're killing because of this. mr. akin: i'd like to underline

that point we just had my good friend from tennessee talking about what happened when tennessee did this crazy, hare-brained idea, now you're saying actually, is it today that the president is coming to missouri and to come degree to assure people that he's concerned with unemployment and yet what you're telling me is you had small business owners going bankers, i think you had a banking background is that right? mr. luetkemeyer: that's correct. mr. akin: they had loans set up, this thing passes and they say, forget it. we're not going to expand business that way. you literally have people you know in the banking business in the state where the president is visiting today and they're saying, these people came to us and said we don't want your money. we can't make enough money. we can't make enough profit on it to pay you back. we keep coming to the same

conclusion, i don't mean to beat on this a little bit but the solution to this is repeal it. we've got to get rid of it. i'm joined by another good friend of ours, another doctor, a stalwart in this, my good friend congressman gingrey. we've been talking about this tremendous gap between statements that the president is making and now the gaps between what the president is saying and what the center for medicare and medicaid collecting the numbers and saying, totally different than what the president is saying. i just wanted your thoughts on that because you've been very much on top of this bill. mr. gingrey: madam speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding. i think the truth is finally coming out, i guess it's like what speaker pelosi said about a week or just a matter of days before the vote on obamacare, they finally did get that passed as we all know by deem and scheme and reconciliation and everything you can think

of. it barely passed. but her famous quote was, well, we need to hurry up and do this so the american people can find out what's in it. and boy, was she prophetic. nothing could be further from the truth, finally, and i think the gentleman from missouri is absolutely right, now, all of a sudden, the true numbers coming out from the committee on medicare and medicaid services, c.m.s., are showing quite clearly that this pledge that the president, then senator obama, made, i guess as late as october of 2009, 2008, that if you like what you have, you can keep it, certainly nothing could be further from the truth for those 11 million, i think, medicare recipients who get their medicare coverage under the advantage plan. that's cut 18% a year over the next 10 years, something like

$150 billion. that plan is going to go away. mr. akin: let me cut in for a second, doctor, i've got that exact quote. here it is. this is president obecause marx june 15, 2009. -- president obama, june 15, 2009. if you like your doctor, you'll be able to keep your doctor, period. if you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. no one will take it away, no matter what. yet this center is saying that's not true. mr. gingrey: i thank the gentleman. that's the exact quote, i thank him for having that. it's exactly what we all predicted on our side of the aisle and that's why no republicans could vote for this massive takeover of the health care system, 1/6 of our economy. it's part of a grand scheme, of course, and that's why you see people all across this country upset, certainly not just

republicans but independents and the grassroots activists be they tea party patriots or 9/12 group or the doctors for patient care, all these folks that have been coming to the people's house or the nation's capitol over the last year and they're the same folks that were turning out for the town hall meetings last august that the democratic majority, madam speaker, just absolutely turned a deaf ear to and came back and all they did was change the name and the number of the bill. so i thank the gentleman for giving me the opportunity to weigh in as a physician member and there are 10 of us m.d.'s on our side of the aisle and 31 years of experience for me, many, many years of experience for my colleagues. mr. akin: moum of those doctors voted for this bill. how many of those 10 doctors you mentioned voted for this bill? mr. gingrey: the answer is nada

a big zero. that's also true for the two republican senators, the only m.d.'s in the senate, dr. coburn and dr. barrazzo. the unfortunate thing, i yield back to the gentleman, that expertise we had, in the house, the organization, the doctors caucus, the g.o.p. doctors' caucus, there are 15 of us, 10 are m.d.'s, other health care providers in their professional lives, none of us got an opportunity to try to help even though we were knocking on that door, it was never open. i yield back. mr. akin: no chance for input or anything else. . congressman luetkemeyer, what would they have thought if you voted for first of all, you are going to cut medicare? and next you have a brilliant

idea for a tax on wheelchairs and medical devices and something that's going to increase their increase of health care and force them to go to the federal government ultimately to get their health care, what would they have thought of you if you voted for this thing? mr. luetkemeyer: would have rode me out of town on a rail. the people in my district are conservatives, whether republicans or democrats and don't believe in government takeovers. and i think that they are appalled what's going on. last night, in fact today, we have the president in my district. and he had a closed meeting with some folks versus an open meeting where the people could actually speak to him and actually listen to what's going on, which is concerning to me, because here in d.c., we hear more lecturing than listening and a lot of people need to pass

information back and forth. there was 1,100 people in a rally last night in a town of 5,000 and wasn't supporting what the president is doing. this is conservative -- mr. akin: 1,100 people in a town of 5,000. more than one out of five was there. mr. luetkemeyer: that tells you that there is a lot of concern, a lot of frustration and these are people who are watching what's going on, don't approve of it and wanting their voices heard. this is the key. nobody here in d.c. is listening to these folks. they don't foresee what what is happening to this administration listening to the concerns and listening when they point out there is problems with this bill, thought process and ideology. they are being shut out. and as a result, they are standing up and doing what they

can, which is raising their voices even louder. it was exciting to talk to that group by conference phone and they are energized and going to be very vocal come november. mr. akin: i will be talking to one in my district. they have the same set of concerns, the place where the president has been visiting and turning out to say, we're not buying this solution. my good friend from pennsylvania, are you getting the same kind of sense from your constituents that there is a deep-seeded concern for a plan that's going to put 16,000 new i.r.s. agents on the line to try and monitor whether you have done the right government thing? mr. thompson: not just from my constituents. when i get home, i'm out all over my district. my district is a great snapshot of pennsylvania. 22% of the land mass of the commonwealth state. so it's a fairly large piece of pennsylvania and consistently, people are very conservative,

not just the people, it's their state representatives are concerned as well. i just received a resolution that's being put forward in the pennsylvania state house by members of that chamber essentially expressing their concern over this health care mandate. pennsylvania, with the expanded roles of medicaid, is expect todd have a bill of somewhere in excess of $3 billion between 2014 and 2019. $3 billion. now i got to tell you, pennsylvania, financially, is strapped right now. we were the last state to get a budget this last fiscal year. and this year's budget isn't going to be much better. very challenging times for states. a lot of states. not just pennsylvania. and so -- mr. akin: could i flupet and

jump in there because i did have specifics on that very point. i don't know if you gentlemen were aware of it, as of today 19 states representing 41% of the population and our state of missouri is not here but i know they have this on the burner to do, 19 states representing 41% of the population have sued the federal government over obamacare which caused justice breyer to make the statement, obamacare, a good candidate for review by the supreme court of the united states. so it's just not tennessee, georgia, pennsylvania, but there are 19 states here that are saying something. so your point about people listening, boy, oh boy. i yield to my good friend from georgia.

mr. gingrey: i thank the gentleman for yielding and of course i'll yield the time back so the gentleman from pennsylvania can continue to make his point. but he's right on target in regard to what's happening in the states and the commonwealth of pennsylvania, the great state of georgia, we have one more day, tomorrow in the state of georgia, we have a 40-day session and tomorrow is the last day. they passed a budget for fiscal year 2011, which begins on july 1 in the state of georgia. and had to cut almost $1 billion. now, that has been extremely painful. i'm sure it's painful in the state of pennsylvania. but i want to commend the governor of the state of georgia and my colleagues in the general assembly, republican majority in the house and senate, they, madam speaker, made these tough cuts.

and most states, i think 47 states in the union have this balanced budget requirement as part of the constitution. if they can do it, why in the world are we sitting here with what is it, 12 $12.8 trillion worth of debt, $700 billion deficit already in this current fiscal year? i hope my colleagues get what i'm trying to say and anybody listening tonight, this is serious business. and we aren't doing our job up here, quite honestly. it embarrasses me and i yield back. mr. akin: i want to continue back with my friend from pennsylvania. mr. thompson: in terms of medicaid, i think it's an important area to look at in terms of again credibility of what the president was -- said he was going to deliver, democrats said they were going to deliver and the reality and the actions that have taken place here and will take place now that we have these volumes

of pages to read through and see what the reality is. when it comes to medicaid, there will be 18 million more people on the medicaid program. that means they will have essentially coverage. coverage, to me, that means they're going to have a card in their wallet or purse that says they are eligible, form of government insurance. we already had the discussion, the flaws of it, 40 cents to 60 cents for every dollar. i expect that will go down. you expand more people in that program, the pressure that will put will be significant. we have a problem today and there's a difference between what the credibility issue for the democrats is the difference between coverage and access. the fact is that today, only -- there's 40% of physicians in this country who will accept medicaid assistance patients --

60. and for specialists, 60% and expected to go to 80%. they may have coverage, but they really don't have access. if you don't have a physician that's able to accept you or will see you, we aren't providing them access to quality care. mr. roe: would the gentleman yield? mr. thompson: i will. mr. roe: in this year in america, the last number i saw is we're training a whopping total of 600 total primary care physicians. mr. akin: we're training this year 600 primary care physicians? mr. roe: with a country of 300 million. and there are physicians ready to retire. i have study yesterday this -- the massachusetts plan in detail. it's a little different than what we did in tennessee and what they did there were the

mandates like in this plan and the idea was, we're go to go spread the costs over more people and therefore, we're going to hold the costs down and have fewer people going to the emergency room. what's going on in massachusetts. this is the fourth year. it was initiated in 2006. and it's like in tennessee. you can't spend $8 billion and not help some people. no one is arguing that point. massachusetts, the billions that have been spent, you're going to help some folks. they have included another 400,000-plus people. what the governor is now doing is he is recommending that almost all the plans, private plans, premiums are capped. why are they going up faster than they thought they would? they added more people to the rolls that they're not paying the cost of and the idea was, we're going to get people out to primary care doctors and cut the number of people going to emergency rooms. guess what? that didn't happen.

and why? as the gentleman from just pointed out, mr. thompson, who's going to see you. the fallacy is, who is going to see those patients. mr. akin: i don't want you to make a final point but answer this question. the democrat governor of tennessee before this bill was passed, called this the mother of all unfunded mandates. in other words, one thing that state legislators hate is when we up here pass some piece of legislation which busts their budget and they have to take the political hit because we are fiscally irresponsible and legislatively irresponsible. is this a budget buster? mr. roe: no question. the people don't understand from a patient standpoint, if i have a card, i have health insurance coverage, not necessarily. in the state, the way this would

happen with senator nelson in nebraska is he exempted nebraska and the final bill that was passed put everybody in. the state's made whole. mr. akin: the cornhusker kickback? mr. roe: yes. but it's an unfunded mandate for states. they get it. when the governors -- we have an election right now in tennessee it's a hot topic. who is going to pay for it? you are right, this was a fiscally conservative democratic governor and he got it and had to deal with it and asked them not to do that, pass this bill. very much against it. mr. akin: we have been joined by congressman lamborn and welcome to the discussion. you would think logicically what in the world are these congressmen doing railing about some bill that has been passed? there was some truth in what congresswoman pelosi said you

have to pass the bill to find out what's in it. we are discovering all kinds of surprises. and that is what we have been talking about tonight, things that the obama accountants that were in the medicare/medicaid group analyzing this thing saying whoops. it's not going to bend the cost curve down but bend it up. so it's going to be more expensive. uh-oh. it's going to cost jobs. mr. lamborn: this is a great discussion you are having and thank you for letting me participate. you raised a good point that this report has shown that this is going to be a lot more expensive, going to raise taxes, raise health insurance premiums, going to make people drop out of the existing coverage they have. they will be thrown into the government plan. this is a c.m.s. report, the centers for medicare and medicaid services, which is medicaid services, which is nonpartisan and objective.