TRICARE Affirmation Act

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1203 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I claim time in opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Technically, this point of order is about whether or not to consider this rule and, ultimately, the underlying legislation. In reality, it's about blocking much-needed health care reform in this Nation. Those who oppose the process don't want any debate or votes on health care itself. They just want to make reform go away.

I know my colleagues on our side will vote ``yes'' so we can consider this important legislation on its merits and not stop it on a procedural motion. Let's stop wasting time on parliamentary loopholes because those who oppose the legislation can vote against it on final passage. We must consider the rule. We must pass this important legislation today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I submit for the Record a 1-page document explaining why the requirements in the bill are not unconstitutional.

Attack: The individual responsibility requirement is

unconstitutional.

Response: The arguments that have been raised against the

constitutionality of an individual responsibility requirement

are meritless. For over 70 years, the Supreme Court has

recognized that Congress has the authority under the Commerce

Clause to regulate activities that have a substantial effect

on interstate commerce, which includes buying and selling

health insurance. The requirement for individuals to

contribute to their own health insurance coverage is clearly

constitutional.

Over 70 years of Supreme Court precedent has recognized

that, under the Commerce Clause, Congress can regulate

activities that have a substantial effect on interstate

commerce. A requirement that individuals purchase health

insurance is both commercial and economic in nature--indeed,

few things are more critical to our nation's economic health.

The failure of individuals to obtain health insurance has a

substantial effect on our national economy. The U.S. spends

over $2 trillion dollars on health care each year--more than

$7,000 per person and more than 16 percent of our GDP. The

economy loses billions of dollars every year because of the

costs of treatment for uninsured Americans. And currently,

individuals can forego buying insurance, leaving hospitals--

and ultimately Americans who do buy insurance--on the hook

for expensive emergency procedures. That drives up insurance

premiums for all Americans.

Mandating health insurance affects interstate commerce in

several ways. Covering more people will reduce the price of

insurance by addressing free-riders who rely on emergency

care and other services without paying for all the costs,

which drives up costs for people with insurance. It will also

ensure an insurance pool with a full cross section of healthy

and sick subscribers, which will help keep down costs for

everyone.

Even the conservative Supreme Court has recognized that the

federal government has broad authority to regulate under the

Commerce Clause. In 2005, the Court held that the federal

government can prohibit medical marijuana grown at home and

consumed personally under the Commerce Clause (Gonzalez v.

Raich). Justice Scalia, no fan of expansive claims of

Congressional power, even voted to affirm Congress' authority

to regulate in that case. Certainly health insurance coverage

has a greater effect on the national economy than people

growing medical marijuana in their backyard.

Congress also has authority to impose an individual

responsibility requirement under its Power to Tax and Spend

for the General Welfare (Article 1, sec. 8, cl. 1) and the

Necessary and Proper Clause (Art. 1, sec. 8, cl. 18.).

Now I am so happy to introduce and yield 2 minutes to Mr. Kennedy, the gentleman from Rhode Island, who is not only a valued Member of this House but whose father, as we know, devoted his congressional life to health care for all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hare).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kagen).

Mr. Speaker, let me yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Fattah).

Mr. Speaker, I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to consider so we can debate and pass the important legislation today.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

My friends on the other side of the aisle are attempting to use a purely technical violation of the earmark identification rule to try and block the House from even considering the rule and the underlying legislation. In fact, the Budget Committee did include an earmark statement in their committee report.

However, a minor technical error in that statement made the legislation subject to a point of order. The Budget Committee has since filed two clarifying earmark statements in the Congressional Record. Clearly these statements, as well as the initial statement in the committee report, should show that it does not violate the spirit of the earmark rule. I have copies of these statements for any Members who need clarification.

The rule and the underlying legislation deserve to be debated on the merits, not stopped by purely procedural motions. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' so we can consider this important legislation, so important to the American people. Let's not waste any more time.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I am happy to tell you that. The final bill will not have State-specific provisions. The provisions that are in apply to multiple States, and a provision in the education portion of the reconciliation bill regarding State-owned banks is being struck by the manager's amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Castor).

If we can use your time.

Yes.

I am sorry, I couldn't hear.

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Langevin).

(Mr. LANGEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Chu).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Scott).

Mr. Dreier, it is absolutely true that the Senate bill does contain those things. It has already been passed and requires no further action in the Senate.

What we will do today is pass the bill, which will then be sent to the President and become law. We will this afternoon pass the reconciliation----

Please let me answer.

No, you don't.

You don't know that.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Yes, the Senate bill will become law today, followed by the reconciliation bill which contains the amendments to the law, which contains what everybody here wants us to take out. The best way that they can achieve their ends of removing the things that are objectionable from the Senate bill is to support reconciliation. And let's see if you can do it.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. Speaker, I did not address the Senate. I want that to be clearly on the record.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands, Dr. Christensen.

I reserve the right to close, and I will reserve the balance of my time unless it is given up on the other side.

Mr. Speaker, I do not.

Mr. Speaker, again I want to urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this motion to consider so that we may debate and pass this important legislation today.

Mr. Speaker, I am certain that I heard you say that the gentleman's time has expired. Is that not correct?

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), and all time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, these have been solemn days and not just because of the important legislation before us. Yesterday just steps away from where we are now standing, a group of protesters engaged in dangerous and derogatory behavior toward four of our Members. I believe the attacks yesterday were a step back for this country, a stark reminder of where we used to be and a reminder of how much further we must travel to fulfill the promise of equality.

It was only 2 weeks ago that my colleague from Georgia, John Lewis, marked the 45th anniversary of Bloody Sunday in Selma, Alabama, and yet this civil rights icon was accosted yesterday while walking here to cast a vote. The use of racist, homophobic and inflammatory rhetoric and reports that the protesters who were gathered on our east terrace plaza attempted to spit on a Member of Congress is heartbreaking. This type of display should alarm every American and encourage us to work harder to put aside the hateful divisions and to come together to bridge the volatile spirit that is tearing apart our country.

The anger isn't just contained outside the Capitol. Last week someone hurled a brick through the window of my district office in the dark of night. We must step back to remind ourselves of why we are here.

I would like to show an incredible document given to me this week by the National Archives from the collection of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's original records. As the father of Social Security, Roosevelt has an honored place in this battle to create a national insurance plan for our country. This message, dated January 23, 1939, over 70 years ago, entitled, ``To the United States Congress of the United States,'' talks plainly about the need of this government to provide health care for its citizens. It was recognized at the time that a comprehensive health care program was required as an essential link to our national defenses against individual and social insecurity. Roosevelt wrote: ``The health of the people is a public concern; ill health is a major cause of major suffering, economic loss and dependency; good health is essential to the security and progress of the Nation.''

I would like to read directly because I think the familiarity is overwhelming: ``I have been concerned by the evidence of inequalities that exist among the States as to personnel and facilities for health services. There are

equally serious inequalities of resources, medical facilities and services in different sections and among different economic groups. These inequalities create handicaps for parts of the country and the groups of our people which most sorely need the benefits of modern medical science.

``The objective of a national health program is to make available in all parts of our country and for all groups of our people the scientific knowledge and skill at our command to prevent and care for sickness and disability; to safeguard mothers, infants and children; and to offset through social insurance the loss of earnings among workers who are temporarily or permanently disabled.''

I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that reading from that piece of paper with his hand notes scribbled on it absolutely takes my breath away, but it is a reminder that eyes of history are watching us. Future generations will look at what we do today, and it will be a guidepost to who we were as a people.

The effort to reform the health care system goes back to at least Theodore Roosevelt, that great President who campaigned in 1912 by promising: ``We pledge ourselves to work increasingly in State and Nation for protection of home life against the hazards of sickness.''

Still later, Harry Truman tackled reforms, as did President Clinton, during the nineties, a battle that I was here for. Before that, the last broad legislative rewrite was led by President Richard Nixon. It's remarkable to me that even after all these years, our final bill may end up being less progressive than the plan that Nixon would have supported, yet still the forces of the other side whip up opposition.

I want to share a story I heard from a constituent in Buffalo. I will be very brief because these heartbreaking stories are nationwide. But it is about a young man who moved from New York to California. In California, his insurance only allowed him to visit the emergency room for seizures. When he got to New York, his insurance did not cover that at all except in New York City, so his father has to drive him back and forth from Buffalo to New York City. And he said, We are slowly going poor.

Our bill covers an estimated 32 million Americans in a fiscally responsible way that improves Medicare benefits, holds insurance companies accountable, and helps small business owners with coverage. We are finally gaining ground against insurance special interests. Small businesses, the backbone of our economy will get tax credits if they make health care coverage available for their workers. We offer free preventive care for people on Medicare. We help people who have retired at 55, 10 years before they are eligible for Medicare. And we ban the lifetime and yearly limit on coverage.

All of these provisions have the potential to transform the way that we deliver health care in the country. The fight has been long and contentious, and the public has been grievously and purposefully lied to. This week the Congressional Budget Office, which is nonpartisan and objective and unbiased, estimates that we will cut the deficit by $143 billion over the next 10 years and $1.2 trillion over the following 10. What do our opponents say? That we can't afford this legislation. The fact of the matter is we can't not afford to do this legislation. For the 100 years we've worked toward this goal and all the obstacles, we are here today to do our job. And Harry Truman said, ``If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.''

Well, I consider the Rules Committee as the kitchen of the of House of Representatives, and I am proud to be the cook. And I am proud to stand up and say that this bill is the right thing to do, and the time to act is now. I am delighted to vote ``yes'' today.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), a member of Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I'm delighted to yield 3 minutes to a member of the Rules Committee and a gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter), a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Maine, a member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Pingree.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage in a colloquy, if I might, with my distinguished committee Chair if that's possible, if she would do that.

If we can use my 15 seconds, Madam Chair?

Well, let me just say that the one thing that we are guaranteed, and please tell me if I am wrong, the one thing that we are guaranteed is that the Senate bill, under the rule that has been crafted by the Rules

Committee, is the only thing that if it passes today we know will become public law; is that correct?

Is that correct, Madam Chair?

Under the rule that was crafted and reported out by the Rules Committee just before midnight last night, is it not true that the only thing that we are guaranteed to have become public law at the end of this day, if the votes are there, is, in fact, the Senate bill?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage in a colloquy with the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules and ask the question as follows:

Is it not true that the only thing that we know with absolute certainty, if in fact it passes, is that the Senate bill will become public law?

We have heard all about this reconciliation package, and the gentlewoman seems to be certain of its passage. But is it not true that this rule guarantees that the only thing that will be law for sure is the Senate bill, which has the Cornhusker kickback, the Louisiana purchase, and those other items?

I would like to reclaim my time.

Mr. Speaker, we now know with absolute certainty that the only thing----

That we are guaranteed----

Mr. Speaker, I encourage everyone to read the rule. Because

the only thing that we are guaranteed upon its passage is that the Senate bill, with the Cornhusker kickback, Gator aid, Louisiana purchase, and all in fact becomes public law.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the distinguished Chair of the Committee on Rules, for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, as the debate on how to reform our health care system has proceeded, a great deal of attention has been focused on how partisan and divided this House is. And I totally concur with the gentlewoman about the horror that took place here yesterday with the awful treatment of our colleagues. It is totally unacceptable.

I will say I am certainly one of those who has lamented the loss of bipartisan cooperation and substantive debate on the most important issues confronting our country. But I think there is at least one thing that we all will agree on, and that is the fact that the measure before us will have enormous repercussions for the American people for years to come.

For many of us, the votes that we are to cast today will be among the most significant that we have ever cast. Health care represents one- sixth of our Nation's economy. That fact alone makes any health care overhaul a tremendously important issue. But it is a lot more personal than that. The care that families receive, the choices that are available and the quality of those choices, these issues couldn't be more important. For many at some point in their lives, access to quality health care will become literally a matter of life or death.

Now we just heard a story from the distinguished chairwoman of the Committee on Rules, and we will hear story after story of tragedies, and we all have them that our constituents face. We must all recognize what a sobering and weighty matter lies before us today, which is why this utterly ill-conceived bill is so dangerous and is such an unfortunate, missed opportunity for a good bipartisan conclusion.

In addition to the divisiveness surrounding this measure, a great deal of attention has also been focused on the process by which this has been brought to the floor. Speaker Pelosi has argued that the American people care far more about the final product than the process by which it is considered. Now in a warped and bizarre way, Mr. Speaker, she is absolutely right. As egregious as this process has been, the American people will suffer the consequences of the substance of the bill in an even more significant and lasting way. As much as the public was outraged by procedural tactics to avoid a transparent vote on the Senate health care bill, the greatest outrage has always been reserved for the bill itself.

This is not a bill that will increase access to care or improve its quality. It will not rein in costs.

What it will do is add an enormous amount of new government bureaucracy to our existing system. It will spend $1 trillion at a time when our deficit is already $1.4 trillion, and our total national debt exceeds $12 trillion. It will cripple the small businesses that are already struggling in this economy and will further drive up unemployment. It will exponentially increase the waste and the potential for fraud and abuse that drive up costs while reducing access and quality. It will undoubtedly gut Medicare and potentially threaten the benefits and health care choices for nearly 11 million seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage. It gives no guarantee to the more than 8 million Americans enrolled in health savings accounts that they will be able to keep their current coverage if they so choose. And it will implement all of the backroom deals that have so outraged the American people, and which we have discussed here today--Gator aid, the Louisiana purchase, the Cornhusker kickback, and the Bismarck bank job. As I said in my exchange with the distinguished chairwoman earlier, this is the only bill that has the potential of being the law of the land by the end of this day.

Mr. Speaker, this is a bad bill that grows even more unpopular every single day. But while Speaker Pelosi may be right that the substance of the bill will be remembered longer than the process, the process has been so tainted that we cannot simply gloss over it.

The Democratic leadership charged forward recklessly all of the past week or two with plans to try to avoid a transparent up-or-down vote on the Senate's health care bill despite enormous public outrage and harsh bipartisan criticism that came from their colleagues of the Democratic leadership. For days they ignored the demands of the American people to dispense with the Senate health care bill in an accountable way.

But when Democratic Members began demonstrating their outrage, the Democratic leadership had no choice; since the American people got it and understood what was taking place here, they had no choice but to abandon their plans.

The rule before us will allow for votes on two questions, Mr. Speaker: Will the Senate health care bill become law and will a second reconciliation bill be advanced to the Senate for further consideration. So again only one measure will become law. While the decision to actually hold a vote I have to admit is a welcome one, I hope very much that my colleagues will forgive my lack of exuberance over this development. I can't quite bring myself to congratulate the Democratic leadership for agreeing to uphold the democratic process and actually have a vote on their legislation.

It is a sad commentary on the state of our institution when simply holding a vote to make a hopelessly flawed bill the law of the land feels like progress. But that's the reality, unfortunately, of where we stand today. While the Democratic leadership, as we all know, had no choice but to agree to hold a vote on the Senate bill, they have still completely closed down the debate.

Yesterday we had a very rigorous debate in the Rules Committee, where countless concerns were raised. Mr. Speaker, none of those concerns will be voted on today. We went 13\1/2\ hours yesterday, yet none of those concerns will be addressed today.

While the debate over health care has gone on for over a year, today we will be voting on a reconciliation package that was only fully made available last night, violating the 72-hour requirement. Yes, we will be having an actual vote today. But without open debate, the opportunity for amendments, or the chance to fully analyze the legislation, we still do not have full transparency or accountability. What we do have the opportunity to do today is to answer two different questions: One, will the Senate health care bill become the law of the land? And will a separate reconciliation package be advanced to the Senate for further consideration?

Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely critical to emphasize this two-track process because the Democratic leadership would very much like, as we have seen from the exchanges earlier, muddle this crucial fact. If they prevail today, Mr. Speaker, the Senate bill and only the Senate bill will become public law. The Senate bill, with all of its backroom deals and serious problems that are widely recognized by all, that is the only thing that will become law.

The Democratic leadership has tried to claim that the reconciliation package will fix all of the problems in the Senate bill. That claim is far from accurate. The fundamental approach to health care reform put forth by the Senate bill, which is fatally flawed, will remain intact. Putting aside that hard truth for just a moment, the more immediate issue is that the reconciliation package will not become law today. It will merely be sent to our friends, our colleagues in the other body, where it will be slowly picked apart like everything else that is sent to the other body. Maybe the Senate will amend it and send it back here for further action, Mr. Speaker. Maybe it will fail to act at all. No matter what anyone says in this institution, Mr. Speaker, no one knows. No one has any idea what takes place those many, many miles away, it seems, down that hallway. The only thing that can be sent to the President for signature today is the Senate bill that virtually no one supports.

Let's cut through all of the misrepresentations and distortions. Passage of the underlying measures will ensure one thing and one thing only: enactment of the Senate bill. And I challenge anyone to take me on on that one. A vote for these measures today is a vote for all of those things that I mentioned: the Louisiana purchase; the Cornhusker kickback, which even Senator Nelson wants taken out; this Bismarck bank job; and the Gator aid. All of these things. It is a vote for new taxes and government bureaucracy. It is a vote for a trillion-dollar bill that does nothing to improve access or quality in our health care system.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject this rule. The Democratic leadership has demonstrated that when they are left with no other option, they can be forced into doing the right thing. Mr. Speaker, let's start fresh and find the real solutions for the American people that are so critically needed.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to my very hardworking Rules Committee colleague, the gentleman from Miami, Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm happy to yield such time as he may consume to another hardworking member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Dallas, Mr. Sessions.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes to another dedicated member of the Rules Committee, the gentlewoman from Grandfather Community, North Carolina (Ms. Foxx).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm happy to yield 1 minute to a former member of the Rules Committee, but always hard working, the gentleman from Moore, Oklahoma, Mr. Cole.

(Mr. COLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm happy to continue the Rules Committee and former Rules Committee lineup by yielding 2 minutes to another former Rules Committee member, the gentleman from Marietta, Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 1 minute to a hardworking new member from Clarence, New York (Mr. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order against H. Res. 1203 because the resolution violates section 426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act. The resolution contains a waiver of all points of order against consideration of the bill except those arising under clause 10 of rule XXI which includes a waiver of section 425 of the Congressional Budget Act which causes a violation of section 426(a).

Mr. Speaker, let me just quote from a letter to the Speaker of the House by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office dated yesterday: ``The Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the total cost of those mandates to State, local and tribal governments and the private sector would greatly exceed the annual thresholds established under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.''

Mr. Speaker, this bill is the mother of all unfunded mandates. There are mandates on States. The new Medicaid mandate is expected to cost, according to the CBO, an additional $20 billion on States. Let's start with the State mandate, $20 billion on States in Medicaid. Democratic Governors have been speaking out against this. Let me quote Governor Rendell from Pennsylvania: ``I think it's an unfunded mandate. We just don't have the wherewithal to absorb this health care bill without some new revenue source.''

There is an individual mandate. It mandates individuals purchase government-approved health insurance or face a fine to be collected by the IRS which will need $10 billion additional and 16,500 new IRS agents to police and enforce this mandate.

There is a business mandate. It mandates businesses provide government-approved health insurance or face penalties. If you don't offer health insurance coverage, you have to pay $2,000 per employee. If you do offer health insurance coverage, but one of your employees decides to take the Federal subsidy, you have to pay up to $3,000 per employee anyway.

There's a health plan mandate. There are mandates on health plans to comply with new Federal benefits, mandates without any funds to meet these new requirements. There are new medical loss ratios of 80 and 85 percent. This hardly jives with the notion, If you like what you have, you can keep it, because millions of Americans will exactly lose just that.

There's a provider mandate. This mandates that many health care providers must actually provide exactly what Washington says. They're forced to take unilateral reimbursement cuts from the new independent payment advisory board.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I want to elaborate quite a bit more, but I will reserve the balance of my time.

May I inquire how much time is remaining between the two sides, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let's look at the fiscal consequences of this bill. I think we're going to hear a lot today how this bill reduces the deficit according to the Congressional Budget Office. Well, I would simply say, the oldest trick in the book in Washington is that you can manipulate a piece of legislation to manipulate the final score that comes out.

But let's take a look at the subsequent analysis by the Congressional Budget Office. Let's take a look at the claims being made and the reality that we're facing. This bill double-counts billions of dollars. It takes $70 billion of premiums from the CLASS Act to spend on this new government program, instead of going to the CLASS Act. It takes $53 billion in Social Security taxes which are reserved for Social Security and, instead, spends it on this new program. The Congressional Budget Office is telling us that in order to fulfill all the discretionary requirements, $71 billion will be required to manage this new government-run health care system. They're saying at the Congressional Budget Office that Medicare part A trust fund, the trust fund itself will be raided to the tune of $398 billion.

So if we actually count a dollar once, which is how law in math works, this bill has a $454 billion deficit. I find it very interesting and noteworthy that just 2 days ago, the Speaker of the House said, We will be passing legislation in April, doing the so-called doc fix. Well, that's $208 billion. And according to the Congressional Budget Office, when that will pass, combined with the double-counting and the gimmicks and the smoke and mirrors, we will have a $662 billion deficit under this bill alone.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let's think about the economic consequences because the economic consequences that will be borne by this bill are truly horrific. People are losing jobs in this country. Our unemployment rate is near 10 percent. For us to get our unemployment rate back to where it was before the economic crisis, back to 5 percent, we will literally have to create 250,000 jobs every month for 5 years in this Nation. So what does this bill do? It imposes a new tax increase of $569.2 billion, over half a trillion in new taxes on labor, on capital, on families, on small businesses, on work, on jobs.

And look at what we're looking at. Before even passing this bill, Mr. Speaker, we are going into a tidal wave of red ink of debt. The interest alone on the national debt that's about to befall us will be crushing to our economy. I asked the Congressional Budget Office, what would my three children face

when they were my age? What we heard from the CBO was just alarming. By the time my three kids are my age--I am 40 and they're 5, 6 and 8 years old--the CBO said that the glide path that we are on before passing this bill, the tax rate on that generation by the time they're 40 years old will be that the 10 percent bracket goes up to 25 percent, middle- income taxpayers will pay an income tax rate of 63 percent, and the top rate that the small businesses pay will be 88 percent. This is the legacy we are leaving the next generation.

Last year the General Accountability Office said that the unfunded liability of the Federal Government--meaning the debt we owe to all the promises being made--was $62 trillion. You know what they say today, $76 trillion. And what are we doing here? A $2.4 trillion new unfunded entitlement on top all of that. We can't even afford the government we've got right now, and we're going to be putting this new unfunded entitlement on top of it?

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, though, what's most insidious, what's most concerning, what's most troubling about this bill is what the future holds. This bill subscribes to the arrogant idea that Washington knows best, that Washington can organize and micromanage the entire health care sector of this country, 17 percent of our economy, one-sixth of our economy.

Well, let me give you a glimpse into that future, Mr. Speaker. This is the Treasury's 2009 financial report. It tells us that we are walking into an ocean of red ink, of debt, of deficit, of spending. And the only way to get this under control, the only way to stop a debt crisis from befalling this country--much like Europe is about to walk into--if you have government-run health care, if you have the government take the rest of the health care sector over is to deeply and systematically ration health care.

Think about what's in this legislation. We have a new comparative effectiveness research board placed in the stimulus legislation that decides what treatments are worth paying for. We have a new Medicare commission called the Independent Payment Advisory Board that makes across-the-board cuts into Medicare whether it's good for patients or not based upon cost considerations, bypassing the authority of Congress. And we have the new U.S. Preventive Task Force. That's an agency that recently said women in their forties don't need to do mammograms, that has been given unprecedented power in this legislation to make decisions that are normally made by patients and doctors.

What this bill does is it says this: we are no longer going to trust the will, the interest, and the decisions of patients and their doctors. They don't know enough. We're going to take the power and the money from the citizens and bring it to Washington, and Washington knows best. Washington will set up elaborate boards and bureaucracies of technocrats who can better micromanage those decisions. And the only way to get this debt crisis only control, the only way to get this under control is to ration care.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, we can do better. It doesn't have to be

this way. This is not democracy. This is not good government. One of the cornerstone principles of this Nation that the Founders created is the principle that we govern by consent of the governed. That principle is being turned on its head here today.

More to the point, the shame of all of this is we have been offering constructive solutions from the very beginning. We have asked you to work with us on a bipartisan basis, step by step, piece by piece, work on the uninsured, work on preexisting conditions, work on costs, work on prices, work on the deficit. All along the other side said ``no,'' we are doing it our way, one-party rule.

This bill clearly violates the House rules. We shouldn't be waiving our own rules and imposing these costly mandates. We are going to hear many emotional appeals today. Let me tell you a little bit about my own. I have the best mother-in-law a man could ever ask for. She is 5 years facing stage 3 ovarian cancer, and she is still fighting it because of a drug called Avastin that is keeping her alive. Well, if she was a British citizen, she wouldn't have it because they deny this drug to their cancer patients. We are setting up the identical same bureaucracies they have there here.

This bill explodes the deficit, it explodes the debt, and the only way to fix it is to put that kind of rationing in place. That is not what our government should be doing. This bill is a fiscal Frankenstein. It is a government takeover. It is not democratic.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, it is not too late to get it right. Let's start over, let's defeat this bill.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, today the House is considering H.R. 4887, the TRICARE Affirmation Act. While I support the bill we have before us, I'm disappointed in another display of rushing the process. Speaker Pelosi said that we need to pass the health care bill so we can find out what's in it. This is, fortunately, one that was found before it was passed. Think of how many other hundreds and hundreds of possible errors there may be in that bill because of being forced through quickly and being ill considered.

Moreover, as a former member of the 82nd Airborne Division, I'm deeply disappointed that we had to leave out veterans. Those who have served our country would actually become victims of a policy that the Congress is enacting--inadvertently and not by any malice aforethought. And I certainly thank and share my greatest appreciation with the distinguished chairman, Mr. Skelton, of the Armed Services Committee, who I served with for several years, for catching this and correcting this wrong.

The bill wasn't added to the schedule until close to midnight last night. Beyond the immediate process issues, the addition of this bill to the calendar points to a troubled future if the Senate health care bill passes the House tomorrow. We're many votes away from health care reform becoming law, but already, as I mentioned, we're seeing fundamental flaws in this Senate bill that require amendment.

As we all know, the health care bill that we'll consider tomorrow contains a new requirement that every single American in this country enroll in a health care plan that the government approves. President Obama said that if you like your doctor, you can keep him--if he approves. Now we have the IRS and we have Federal agencies that are going to get into our private affairs, and now it's affecting our veterans. If an individual does not have this coverage, they will be subject to a penalty and even the possibility of prosecution through the IRS.

H.R. 4887 essentially amends the not-yet-passed Senate health care bill to clarify that all TRICARE plans are considered as minimal acceptable coverage under the bill. It is the least that we can do for our veterans. Defining TRICARE as such is important because it exempts its enrollees from the individual mandate in the Senate bill.

As most know, TRICARE is a complete medical care benefit program for active duty members and retirees of all seven uniformed services and their dependents. TRICARE is currently open to about 9.3 million potential beneficiaries. Active duty military, their spouses, and dependents are automatically enrolled in TRICARE Prime. Retirees can choose between TRICARE Prime or two other options. Then there is a fourth subset called TRICARE for Life. These beneficiaries are enrolled in Medicare, but TRICARE serves as a secondary payer.

Unfortunately, in the Senate health care bill, Democrats do not deem TRICARE programs for servicemembers and military retirees under age 65 to provide minimum acceptable coverage. H.R. 4887 would clarify these programs and make sure that they're included in this definition.

It's surprising to me that these programs were left out originally. This is an important change to make, but I think this is only a foreshadowing of what is to come for hardworking Americans.

The Senate health care reform bill has not even been signed into law and we already have to fix it. If Democrats were originally willing to adversely impact the health care coverage of these Americans who have honorably served our country, you have to wonder whose health care is safe.

These oversights occurred because this process is too big, too fast, and being done against the will of the American people. I support this amendment. It's critical that we protect our military families.

I reserve the balance of my time.

I now yield 4 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon).

Now, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished ranking member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, a veteran of Desert Storm and a retired United States Army Colonel, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining on our side?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), an Air Force veteran and another distinguished member of the Veterans Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

As we revisit this event, we are correcting an egregious wrong that was done by oversight to not fully cover our veterans and those on active duty and their families. The fact that TRICARE would not fall into the so-called minimally accepted coverage leads me back to the false standard that was set in the beginning on this bill in the first place.

I was, among other things in the military, an assault helicopter pilot. One of the things that we learned as young aviators is that accidents normally didn't happen because of one big thing. Normally an accident would happen, and several of my close friends paid the ultimate price in this, was because several little things would begin to pile up, small events, things unseen. The faster the environment began to process, the more they would pile up, and eventually they became uncontrollable. Not noticing power, not noticing air speed, not noticing their rate of descent, their altitude, their visual references, lots of things can come into play.

The bottom line is we are doing the same thing now, except we are doing it with one of the largest and most sweeping bills in the history of this country. We are rushing headlong without even a week; 72 hours for a bill this big, give me a break. Let's think about the reality of what we are doing, rushing headlong to do the largest transfer of power to the executive branch in the history of the United States.

This is about turning us into a different Nation. This is about stepping beyond article I of the Constitution to deem. To deem what? We are fixing a small mistake. I guarantee you, there are hundreds of others. Deeming actually is pronouncing something that isn't as if it were done, for all practical purposes, and it was designed from a legislative perspective for simple corrections. Let us deem everybody good health; that has about the same effect in the eyes of the American people. If we are dealing with veterans, let us deem world peace so there won't be any more risks internationally.

You see the absurdity of this argument presented over and over and over. And for the thousands of Americans outside this building, while we stand in here trying to work together to fix a small piece, there are hundreds and hundreds of other things piling up.

Remember what the Speaker said: the Speaker said we have to pass this bill so we can find out what's in it. In the name of heaven, shouldn't we know what is in it before it even comes to this floor for a vote? I demand to know the justice in that, in ramming a piece of legislation through here that is going to change the lives of our children and our grandchildren.

You ask the people dying in hospitals in England, you ask the people who wait 18 months for bypass surgery, you ask the veterans who are yet to come forward who will not have health care because of this on some technical fix. We are hiring over 100,000 new government bureaucrats and not making the changes the rest of the country uses. And every time in the Ways and Means Committee we tried to offer those changes, they were rejected. Think about this for a moment.

I don't want the most important thing that we are handling in this administration to become a train wreck waiting to happen when we see all of the events beginning to pile up. We need to slow the overall bill down. The fact that we would have to do this, the fact that there are thousands of people demonstrating tells us that there is more to this than simply giving people health care.

I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Mr. Speaker, I will go ahead and close with these final remarks.

Next year will be the 30th anniversary of my graduation from the United States Military Academy. When I am back there seeing these men and women who have served this country in so many distinguished ways, through times of peace and war and turbulence, the one thing that I want to be able to look in their eyes and say that we did as a Congress, not simply me, is that we served their needs, their family needs, the needs of their soldiers, the needs of veterans in general.

And it is clear from the overall legislation that we are seeking to amend before it even becomes law, although I think that is constitutionally in question if we are not actually going to vote on the Senate bill, we need to slow this process down and stop the Senate bill from being forced through this House, this reconciliation process, and go back to square one and do this step by step and get it right the first time rather than having to make corrections.

I thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee for bringing this critical fix forward. There are many more. Let us get to those.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Would the gentleman yield?

I would point out that TRICARE for life was excised from the Senate bill.

Let me ask how much time the minority has.

First of all, I'd like to applaud Buck McKeon and Ike Skelton for their efforts, along with Mr. Levin, to permit this bill to be considered, but we haven't gone far enough. Now, it's kind of what happens when we rush or go too fast around here. We get sloppy in our drafting.

Now, in the bill that was passed here in the House, there were general authority provisions under the Secretaries of DOD and VA to ensure that those health systems would be protected--the authorities, their general provision authorities to the Secretaries would be protected. That language was not in the Senate bill.

The Senate bill, which is now coming over here, interestingly enough, to--which is about to be deemed. Pretty interesting. I don't know if you know about the word ``deem.'' It comes from the old English origin to ``dom,'' and to ``dom'' was from judges. It means to make judgment. In the 17th century, judges actually then began to make rapid judgments, and they called them ``deemers.'' The origin of to dom-- there are two words: to deem and to doom. Pretty fascinating.

So, right now, the language that was going to be deemed, the bill under consideration, will, in fact, cover the TRICARE, because right now it covers just TRICARE for Life.

There's about $30 billion a year for TRICARE for those who are active duty, or guardsmen, or reservists who are brought to active duty to include their dependents. And with this $30 billion price tag, that's a lot of money. Over 10 years, that's around $300 billion. I don't know how we can exclude them, but we're going to bring them in.

What I'm about to ask of Mr. Levin is, we also have this commitment, this commitment from the leadership, from the Speaker, from the leaders of the dominant committees of Ed and Labor, and Ways and Means, the Appropriations, and Energy and Commerce to protect the veterans programs. Now in that language that's coming from the Senate to here for which we're not going to get to vote on nor amend, it says that we will take care of the chapter 17 veterans programs. Veterans programs.

But this chapter 17, there are other programs to survivors and dependents which would not be covered. So their programs which presently exist would not be under the minimum essential. Who are they? That would be the widows, the survivors, and the orphaned children, to include, for example, an agent orange Vietnam veteran whose child or adult dependent has spina bifida would not be covered.

Parliamentary Inquiries

I have a parliamentary inquiry.

My parliamentary inquiry would be this: The bill that is under suspension was dropped last night. We had to immediately respond to all of this, and I have dropped a bill just in the last hour. I apologize to my Democrat friends. I know you're just getting a chance to look at this.

My parliamentary inquiry is, how would I be able to ask for an immediate consideration of this bill under a suspension?

That's correct. Yes, as a separate measure. How can I call this bill to an immediate consideration?

At the conclusion of this bill, could I ask for unanimous consent for immediate consideration of this bill to protect the survivors and orphans of our veterans?

Further parliamentary inquiry. Does that mean that at the conclusion of this vote that the Chair would not recognize me for a unanimous consent request?

So the U.C. would not be in order.

I yield to the gentleman.

Reclaiming my time on the parliamentary inquiry, would it be made in order under a unanimous consent request on a suspension that the gentleman could amend? In other words, could I offer a unanimous consent request to amend to include the general authority language that is very similar to which the House had already passed previously under the health bill?

So the gentleman--I accept your good faith. You could withdraw this bill. We are moving quickly, and you're correct that it is highly technical. We only got to see this bill a few days ago. So Mr. Skelton and Mr. McKeon, all of their staffs didn't get to fully cover it. It's immediately dropped at midnight. We immediately bring it to the floor. We then have to react.

Further parliamentary inquiry. As gentlemen, why don't we pause under the rules? We can withdraw the suspension. We can work, and then the gentleman can bring it back, in good faith. I would ask of the gentleman under the comity of the House----

All right. I would ask of the gentleman, would the gentleman consider to withdraw the suspension to allow us to include the general authority provisions and correct the errors in the bill?

All right. I'm going to reclaim my time. The gentleman's position is that you have chosen not to withdraw the bill to correct the errors, but you want to proceed.

Let me reclaim my time, because we have a really large distinction here. Because the bill that is about to be deemed--we don't even have the right to vote on it. See, this is what's blowing my mind, Mr. Levin. Those of us who have actually worn the uniform, we don't fight for any bounty of our own. We fight for liberty, we fight for freedom, the right to speak, the right to vote. And then we're going to be denied the right to vote on a Senate bill, and nor do we have the opportunity to amend? And to say that there are not errors when we move this fast, we don't even allow the deliberative process to be used. I'm pleading with you, Mr. Levin. I'm pleading with you. The bill that's before us only covers TRICARE for life. I know this.

Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

Mr. Speaker, I apologize. Mr. Levin, I apologize. I drafted TRICARE for Life. I understand this program. This bill only covers TRICARE for Life. So individuals who are enrolled in TRICARE-- it's not considered a minimum essential health program.

Now I know you didn't mean to do that. So let's get that corrected. That's why you're going to do this bill. So then why don't we absolutely make sure we correct chapter 17 to then protect survivors and dependents? It's an error. I'm not going to stand here and say you intentionally meant to leave out widows and orphans. I don't believe that. But if you're going to correct it on TRICARE, let's take care of the veterans too. I would just plead for the gentleman to stop and pause while we're in consideration here. Let's amend this, and let's do it right. That's my plea.

I will also let you know that we do things substantively. We also do things politically. Ha. There's a response. Letters are coming in, and emails are coming in right now from all the VSOs, and the Veterans Service Organizations are pretty upset. Pretty upset. Whenever we move fast, we're sloppy, and people get hurt in the process. This is not one of our finest hours.

Announcement by the Speaker pro tempore

Mr. Speaker, in consultation with the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, a gentleman that I respect, I think the best approach is we will vote on your bill and ask the minority leader, and approach the majority leader and the Speaker, and you can do your due diligence on the policy aspects to make sure that things can get corrected and then maybe we can call for immediate consideration of the Buyer-McKeon bill. I think that is a good approach.

I yield to the gentleman.