[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 42 (Saturday, March 20, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H1783-H1788]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
COLD WAR VETERANS RECOGNITION DAY
Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to
the resolution (H. Res. 900) supporting the goals and ideals of a Cold
War Veterans Recognition Day to honor the sacrifices and contributions
made by members of the Armed Forces during the Cold War and encouraging
the people of the United States to participate in local and national
activities honoring the sacrifices and contributions of those
individuals, as amended.
The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
The text of the resolution is as follows:
H. Res. 900
Whereas the Cold War involved hundreds of military
exercises and operations that occurred between September 2,
1945, and December 26, 1991;
Whereas millions of Americans valiantly stood watch as
members of the Armed Forces during the Cold War; and
Whereas many Americans sacrificed their lives during the
Cold War in the cause of defeating communism and promoting
world peace and stability: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) honors the sacrifices and contributions made by members
of the Armed Forces during the Cold War; and
(2) encourages the people of the United States to
participate in local and national activities honoring the
sacrifices and contributions of those individuals.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentlewoman from
Guam (Ms. Bordallo) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Lamborn) each
will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Guam.
General Leave
Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks on the resolution under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from Guam?
There was no objection.
Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I rise today in support of House Resolution 900, honoring the
sacrifices and contributions made by members of the Armed Forces during
the Cold War. I would like to thank my friend from New York, Mr. Steve
Israel, for bringing this resolution to the House floor.
In an age where fear dictated the world's stage, the Armed Forces of
the United States of America bravely stood guard to ensure that
communism, one of democracy's greatest adversaries, would not prevail.
The Cold War Certificate Program recognizes the service of veterans
during the period of the Cold War from September 2, 1945 to December
26, 1991 in promoting peace and stability for America.
For nearly five decades the United States stood the test of time and
proved its powerful convictions in defending itself and the ideals of
freedom from the threat of communism.
Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to help the achievements and
sacrifice of the Armed Forces during the Cold War be recognized by
passing a resolution that encourages the people of our Nation to
participate in local and national activities honoring our veterans. I
am proud to stand here today to honor the men and the women who stood
on the brink of devastating global war in order to bring peace and
stability to the world, and I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of
House Resolution 900.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I rise also in support of House
Resolution 900, as amended, supporting the goals and ideals of a Cold
War Veterans Recognition Day, and encouraging the people of the United
States to participate in activities honoring the sacrifices and
contributions of Cold War veterans.
The Cold War was a war between the freedoms of democracy and the
totalitarian ideology of communism. It was fought around the world,
often in places that were on the brink of slipping into the harsh
realities of communism. It was fought by millions of Americans who, as
members of the Armed Forces, were at the point of the spear defending
democracy whenever it was in peril. Many Americans sacrificed their
lives in the long struggle against communism.
[[Page H1784]]
For that reason, Madam Speaker, it is right to recognize the veterans
of the Cold War and thank them for their dedication and efforts toward
defeating communism.
I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel) for introducing this
bill. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to
my friend and colleague, the sponsor of this resolution, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Israel).
Mr. ISRAEL. I thank the gentlewoman and the gentleman, as well, for
the bipartisan cooperation that has been demonstrated with respect to
this bill.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution, supporting a day
of recognition for Cold War Veterans. I am very proud to have authored
it and sponsored it. It recognizes American heroes who protected our
Nation during one of the most perilous times in our history.
Madam Speaker, the Cold War began on September 2, 1945, and ended on
December 26, 1991, and the years in between were fraught with peril. I,
along with many of my colleagues, grew up in the Cold War. I remember
going to elementary school and hearing the air raid drill, going out
into a hall, bracing myself against a wall covering my head with my
arms. There were millions of American children who went through those
exercises.
Tens of thousands of nuclear warheads were aimed between the United
States and the Soviet Union. The world was on hair trigger. And while
wars were fought and combat raged in places like Korea and Vietnam,
those nuclear missiles never fired. The nuclear conflagration between
the United States and the Soviet Union never occurred. It never
occurred because of those heroes of the Cold War.
They answered President Kennedy's call as we embarked on a path full
of hazards. They maintained and defended missile silos and checkpoints.
They served on remote B-52 bomber bases and storm-tossed Navy ships.
And when they returned, there were no parades; there were no public
thanks. They went quietly to their jobs.
Until today. Today, they receive that thanks. Today we acknowledge
their courage, their valor, and their patriotism. Today we say thank
you to those who kept the world safe, who kept the peace, who saved the
world from that unimaginable nuclear catastrophe.
My bill honors their service, Madam Speaker, and asks that Americans
fly their flags high in thanks, that we dedicate 1 day each year to
thank them for 50 years of security.
Those young children in those elementary schools had to feel great
fear during those air raid drills. They may have felt unsafe at the
time, but those in dangerous places kept them safe for a generation and
more. We thank them for that service.
I thank both sides of the aisle for their bipartisan demonstration of
support for this bill, and I urge its passage.
Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia, Representative Goodlatte.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Colorado and the gentlewoman from Guam for bringing forward this
bipartisan resolution honoring Cold War veterans.
I too also commend the importance of understanding the history of the
Cold War and of what President Kennedy did with the airlift into Berlin
to protect the people of that city; what happened during the 1980s when
President Reagan called the Soviet Union exactly what it was, the Evil
Empire, and later went to the Berlin Wall and called upon Mr. Gorbachev
to ``tear down that wall.'' It was the brave men and women who served
in our Armed Forces who made that possible in our history to see the
ability of our President to stand up to the Soviet Union, and, indeed,
to see that wall torn down not that many years ago.
I will tell you also, however, Madam Speaker, that we have before us
in this Congress today and tomorrow health care legislation, a massive
bill. When you take all of the pages of all the bills that are being
considered here, the House bill, the Senate bill, the reconciliation
bill, you are talking about thousands and thousands of pages. And
tomorrow--tomorrow, we will have a couple of hours for 435 Members to
talk about what is in those bills.
So I have no doubt that the millions of American veterans who served
their country, and many of whom are baby boomers and will be facing
$520 billion in cuts in the Medicare program to pay for a new
government program at a time when our Nation is broke, that they are
going to be as concerned as all of us are here today about this health
care legislation, this monstrosity that is going to include $569
billion in tax increases that will cost millions of American jobs.
They will be concerned to hear from the 130 economists from across
the country who sent President Obama a letter explaining how this
legislation is a job-killer. They will be concerned about their
children and grandchildren who will inherit the enormous debt that is a
product of this legislation. Because, unlike the specious claim that
this will indeed result in deficit reductions, they know that when you
have a side deal of over $200 billion to take care of physicians under
the Medicare bill, when you have a bill that provides 6 years of
coverage with 10 years of tax increases and Medicare cuts, that does
not balance out.
In fact, this legislation is hundreds and hundreds of billions, some
say more than $1 trillion, greater in costs than will be taken in in
revenue and Medicare cuts. The result of this is going to be
devastating for our country, and I urge my colleagues to reject this
monstrosity.
{time} 1830
Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend and
colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. I rise in very strong support of this bill. I commend
Members on both sides for supporting it. I regret that the Member who
just spoke has chosen to use this debate about honoring veterans of the
Cold War era by mischaracterizing the bill before us tomorrow. I'd like
to take a few minutes and specify those mischaracterizations.
The gentleman said there will be Medicare cuts. There will be no cuts
to benefits for any Medicare recipient. Yes, there'll be cuts from
fraud, waste, and abuse under Medicare. Senator Coburn of the other
body says a third of Medicare spending is fraud, waste, and abuse. The
Heritage Foundation says at least 10 percent. This bill takes between 5
and 6 percent of that fraud, waste, and abuse.
For the record, the gentleman made reference to veterans and TRICARE.
Veterans Administration care, which this Congress under this majority
has increased to the highest level of the history of the country, will
not be affected in any way. I will challenge anyone on the minority
side to show me one word in these bills that justifies a different
conclusion, one. TRICARE will not be affected in any way, and I would
offer a similar challenge.
The gentleman said there will be massive tax increases. What he did
not say is that tax increases to help pay for this bill are on families
with an income of more than a quarter of a million dollars a year, the
top 3 or 4 percent in the country.
He said it will cost American jobs and be a job killer. This is
echoes of the words we heard in this Chamber in 1993, when Members of
the other side said the Clinton economic plan would be a job killer.
The former chairman of the House Budget Committee, our friend from
Ohio, Mr. Kasich, said at that time that if the plan worked, he would
become a Democrat. Well, he didn't become a Democrat, but the plan
worked. It created 23 million new jobs after it was passed.
He said there was a specious claim of deficit reduction. I'll say
this to you. The gentleman said that some say the deficit will go up as
a result of this. Well, around here, we don't rely upon hearsay from
unsubstantiated sources. We rely upon the Congressional Budget Office,
and here's what they say. They said the deficit will go down by $138
billion in the first 10 years, and over $1.2 trillion in the next 10.
With all due respect, the men and women who served this country in
the Cold War served honestly and always gave a fair accounting of what
they do. When we hear these remarks on the
[[Page H1785]]
floor, they are not an accurate representation of facts and they,
frankly, do dishonor to this bill and this debate.
Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 4
minutes to my friend and colleague, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr.
Souder).
Mr. SOUDER. I thank my colleague from Colorado.
Apparently, our ground rules here are: We praise the vets on Saturday
and punish them on Sunday. To my friend from New Jersey, this afternoon
we did a supposed fix for TRICARE, because the Senate bill, basically,
unless you're 65 and over, triples TRICARE. We did this Band-Aid
thing----
Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SOUDER. I have 4 minutes, so let me do mine.
We did a Band-Aid this afternoon. Now, the challenge is that as we
debate tomorrow, apparently we're going to have separate votes on the
Senate bill. And the Senate bill is the problem here because it could
become law. So it doesn't really matter what we're doing in the House
right now. The question is: Are our veterans covered in the Senate
bill, and is TRICARE going to be gutted in the Senate bill? And the
veterans who took this risk during the Cold War would rather--as much
as they appreciate a flag being raised, they'd rather have their
TRICARE. So the fundamental question, if any Member votes for the
Senate bill tomorrow in the rule, if we're not going to do this deeming
bill and instead do a separate vote on the Senate bill, this is really
going to be the vote for veterans.
A second category. When it says there's no harm for veterans, or no
job killing, I happen to represent the orthopedic capital of the world
in Warsaw, Indiana. It has DePuy, Biomet, and Zimmer. They are getting
a tax clobbering in this bill, particularly in the Senate bill, and
that tax clobbering equals half of their R&D.
Now, who uses hip replacements and elbows and shoulders more than
anybody? Our vets. Because, particularly as we've developed body armor,
they're getting hit in those places where they used to die, they're now
alive, and a big percentage of them are doing hip replacements.
Now, R&D is critical, particularly as they're 18- to 22-year-olds,
those who are retired vets from the Cold War era are looking at trying
to get quality hip and joint replacements. One of the questions is is
that if you reduce half the R&D, only one of two things can happen:
either future vets are not going to have as good quality and advances
like we've been having or the jobs will go offshore to reduce the costs
so they can do the R&D. There's really not a way that this isn't going
to affect vets. It's indirect.
Then, as we all know, veterans health care in general, just like
Medicare and Medicaid, pays for variable costs and a little bit of
mixed costs. The way the government runs through buildings is that, if
we run through those in one year, we don't do amortization and
depreciation; therefore, in health care costs, private pay funds most
R&D and innovations. So if you're going to keep the quality of care
that you're going to have in veterans, you may have your veterans
hospital, but the new drugs that are being invented, the new hips that
are being invented, the new things that were there that were funded by
private pay are going to be squeezed out of the market and, therefore,
veterans will be indirectly hurt by that.
A third category this bill hurts in veterans and these Cold War
people that we're paying tribute to is, as it goes through and
addresses--even in second home sales, by the way. I have a hundred
lakes in Steuben County, a hundred lakes in Kosciusko County. These
aren't big, fancy kind of western lakes. These are often where retired
vets have a mobile home--it's their second residence--that we've now
airdropped in a tax on the second residences. It's going to punish many
of them who are banking on this either to cash it out for the
retirement or to maybe retire there. They're going to get taxed. They
didn't have the margin for their homes. We have whole lakes that are
around different veterans groups and age groups and people were police
and firemen. They aren't all million-dollar homes. Many of them are
$20,000 and $30,000 homes that now are suddenly valued at $100,000,
$200,000, and they're going to get hammered.
The fourth category where they're going to get hit, and they're very
used to in the veterans systems, and it may not directly affect them,
but they're going to watch with everybody.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 additional minute to
Representative Souder from Indiana.
Mr. SOUDER. Veterans get ping-ponged back and forth. Right now in
Indiana, we're online in this budget to get a new hospital in Fort
Wayne. We haven't had investment since before World War II. But they
get ping-ponged down to Indianapolis because of utilization. You know
what this bill says? In the Medicare reduction it says: Higher
utilization of equipment. Higher utilization of equipment is being
interpreted and they're now going to cardiologists, oncologists, and
others in my district, saying, 80 percent utilization.
That does great for the Federal savings in Medicare, but what it
means is everybody's going to get ping-ponged like the veterans are
getting ping-ponged, because only Indianapolis in the State of Indiana
can reach 80 percent utilization.
So they're telling Fort Wayne, South Bend, other parts of the State
that they aren't going to have oncology equipment, heart equipment. And
just like the veterans who see their records are often lost; when their
appointments are canceled, they have to get a motel. They have to pay
for their own gas. This is a nightmare for the rest of the citizens.
So, once again, I would say, We praise them on Saturday. We're
punishing them on Sunday.
Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and
colleague, who is also a member of the Armed Services Committee, the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentlelady for yielding.
My friend from Indiana, the previous speaker, is a very thoughtful
and substantive Member and I appreciate the good work he does, so I
want to ask him a couple of questions about the assertions he just
made. One is that the Senate bill, the base text, hurts TRICARE. I
wonder if he could explain to us exactly how that is, and I would be
happy to yield to him if he could explain to us.
Can anyone explain how the Senate bill hurts TRICARE? I'm just simply
asking for an explanation of the statement.
Mr. SOUDER. I'm sorry. I don't have the details in front of me. I
have it down. You know the details of the bill far better than I do.
Mr. ANDREWS. Let's talk about one of the details that is more
obvious. I thank you.
The gentleman talked about a couple that would buy a home for $30,000
and sell it for $200,000, having a $170,000 gain. Under the proposal
that the House will consider tomorrow, does the gentleman know what tax
that couple would pay on that gain if they had a $170,000 gain?
Mr. SOUDER. It's based off the capital gains. Right now--I had one
person with a $40,000 house, and the capital gains on that made the
difference of his retirement on an annual basis. The question is they
have planned nothing----
Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, the example the gentleman used was a
couple that bought a $30,000 house, sold it for $200,000, which means
it's a $170,000 gain. The tax would be zero because the tax doesn't
kick in until $250,000.
Every Member is entitled to his own opinion but not his own set of
facts. These assertions are false.
Mr. LAMBORN. Let me say in response to the gentleman from New Jersey
that it was a good step we took with the Ike Skelton bill today. It
solved half the problem. We still have a remaining problem, and that is
that it's not clear, like it should be, who has jurisdiction over
defining beyond whether it's a minimum standard that TRICARE will
satisfy, whether there will be additional impositions and regulations
put on by the health czar. I think a health czar should have no impact,
no say whatsoever on TRICARE.
Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAMBORN. In just a moment.
[[Page H1786]]
And we should have gone farther. We did not do that. We only went
halfway. So it's still undefined who has final control over imposing
all the regulations. And I have veterans in my district, a hundred
thousand of them, who feel that they have earned a right to have health
care, and they don't want to have to be told that they need a second
policy, that somehow that's not good enough. That's what the danger is,
because it hasn't been defined like it should be.
Mr. ANDREWS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAMBORN. You'll have a chance shortly, I'm sure.
I now yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).
Mr. DUNCAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Madam Speaker, and I
rise in support of this resolution to honor our veterans who did so
much to preserve our freedom during the Cold War. It is unfortunate
that we may be about to pass a massive health care bill that will take
away an important part of that freedom that those veterans worked so
hard to preserve.
Madam Speaker, Robert Samuelson, a very middle-of-the-road economics
columnist for the Washington Post, wrote a column this week entitled, A
Cost-Control Mirage. Mr. Samuelson wrote that the health care plan we
will vote on tomorrow ``evades health care's major problems and would
worsen the budget outlook.'' He added that ``It's a big new spending
program when government hasn't paid for the spending programs it
already has.''
Every government health care program has far exceeded all cost
expectations and has cost many times more than what is predicted.
Medicare cost just $3 billion a year after it was created and $453
billion last year. Its unfunded future liabilities are estimated at a
whopping $38 trillion.
Medicaid is also out of control at both Federal and State levels.
Last week, the Governor of Arizona estimated that this new health care
bill would cost her State alone $4 billion that they do not have, when
Arizonans are facing their biggest deficit ever--over $3 billion.
Most States are in their worst shape ever, financially, and yet
according to the Census Bureau, 10 States would have to expand Medicaid
coverage by more than 50 percent, and 33 States would have to expand by
more than 30 percent. The States simply cannot afford all the
megabillions this bill would order them to spend.
Our senior Senator from Tennessee, Senator Alexander, said Congress
``set out to reduce health care costs,'' but that this bill ``will do
the exact opposite.'' He said this bill ``will increase health
insurance premiums, raise taxes, cut Medicare, and dump millions into
Medicaid.''
Of course, the bill is so long, so complicated, so confusing, that
the Speaker of the House was quoted as saying we would have to pass it
to find out what is in it, and one of the Senate Democrat leaders said
on the floor of the Senate even he did not know all that was in it.
{time} 1845
Now the Congressional Budget Office has apparently cooked the books
and filed a very misleading report, attempting to show a cost of less
than $1 trillion. To do this among other budget gimmicks and
manipulations, the CBO was told to count phony savings, such as over
$400 billion from cutting doctors' payments by over 20 percent and
never raising them back up again. This will never happen.
Another huge phony savings comes from cutting Medicare. Dr. David
Gratzner wrote in a column in the New York Daily News last December,
``It's that time of year again: Washington is talking about cuts to
Medicare. President Obama's health care reforms depend on them--up to
$400 billion over 10 years. As a psychiatrist, I'll break the news
gently: Medicare cuts are like Santa Claus and his flying reindeer--
often talked about, never actually seen.''
The Weekly Standard magazine published an analysis of this bill 2
days ago, estimating the bill's real cost during its first decade at
$2.5 trillion to $3 trillion, more than double or triple the CBO
estimate. Then there are the tax increases on everything from medical
equipment producers to tanning bed operators to $210 billion in new
Medicare taxes. Then there are the fines of $695 for individuals or up
to 2.5 percent of household income against people who do not buy
insurance and the employer mandate of $2,000 per employee if they do
not provide insurance. The bill starts the tax increases immediately,
but 98 percent of the benefits do not take effect until 2014. Two
lawyers from one of the Nation's most prominent law firms wrote a
column for the Washington Post entitled, ``Illegal Health Reform.''
David Rivkin and Lee Casey wrote that this bill is, without question,
unconstitutional.
In the early 1990s, Madam Speaker, I went to a reception, and the
doctor who delivered me came and brought my records. I asked him how
much he charged back then, and he said $60 for 9 months of care and the
delivery, if they could afford it. Medical care was cheap and
affordable for almost everyone until the mid sixties. Then we took what
was a very minor problem for a very few people and turned it into a
massive, major problem for everyone.
Anything the Federal Government subsidizes, the costs just explode.
There are many things we can do to bring down the cost of health care,
but this bill would cause costs to go up even more, and getting the
Federal Government into health care in an even bigger way will
eventually lead to shortages, waiting periods, and declining quality of
care, all at greater cost. This bill in the long run will end up
hurting most poor, lower-income, and even middle-income people. It
should be defeated.
The problem is, as Jeffrey Toobin, the CNN legal analyst who is
liberal himself, said in a speech at the Free Library of Philadelphia
last September 27: ``The risk of a liberal Supreme Court is that the
Constitution becomes a meaningless document that means anything you
want it to.'' Apparently, a majority in Congress feel the Constitution
is meaningless, too.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Guam has 11 minutes
remaining, and the gentleman from Colorado has 5 minutes remaining.
Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and
colleague, Mr. Andrews from New Jersey.
Mr. ANDREWS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. We've just heard
another series of misrepresentations. We just heard the CBO, the
Congressional Budget Office ``cooked the books.'' I, frankly, think
that does a great disservice to the men and women on a nonpartisan
basis who work for that budget office and give us their honest
judgment. Apparently the minority doesn't like their honest judgment--
that the bill reduces the deficit. So rather than argue the facts, they
attack the men and women, nonpartisan people, who wrote the report. I
think that's just not fair.
Cuts to Medicare: No Medicare beneficiary gets any cut. There's an
increase in prescription drug coverage. There's an increase in
preventive care where there's no copay. Having said that, I think there
is fraud, waste, and abuse in Medicare. Senator Coburn thinks that. The
Heritage Foundation thinks that. The gentleman on the other side must
think that because last spring when the Republicans put their
alternative budget on the floor, it cut Medicare outlays by $100
billion more than this bill does. It was in excess of $600 billion. And
I, frankly, think that that targeted some fraud, waste, and abuse, so
to argue somehow that these are cuts is disingenuous and inaccurate.
Then we come back to TRICARE. There are two issues with respect to
TRICARE. The first is, which office or department regulates. It's very
clear it is the Department of Defense, and it should be the Department
of Defense, not any other department. Mr. Skelton's bill very wisely
affirmed that. But I'm still waiting for someone on the other side to
tell me what the other problem was of trying to fix TRICARE. I just
don't know what it was. There's an assertion made that the bill hurts
people on TRICARE, and I'm still waiting to hear what that was.
Mr. TIAHRT. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. TIAHRT. The concern was for veterans that were under the age of
65 and have 20 years of service or more, that the health care bill
statutes that were determining what was acceptable as the stand-alone
insurance committee----
[[Page H1787]]
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from New Jersey
has expired.
Ms. BORDALLO. I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.
Mr. ANDREWS. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the gentleman.
It was that the folks who were on TRICARE under the age of 65 and
retired would get moved out of TRICARE into the government-determined
plan.
Mr. ANDREWS. Reclaiming my time, show me in the bill where it says
there's any possibility of that happening. The bill says exactly the
opposite. It says that under the terms of the individual mandate,
someone who's covered by TRICARE satisfies the individual mandate. The
bill also says expressly, No one can be forced to join the exchange, no
one can be forced to buy a particular insurance policy from anyone. So
not only does the bill lack the accusation that the minority makes, it
expressly disclaims it.
I think the public has a right to see where we stand on this, and
tomorrow it will. But I think that right would be in the expectation of
people who have actually read the bill and have an understanding of
what's in it. I don't think the minority has.
Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to my
friend and colleague from Kansas, Representative Tiahrt.
Mr. TIAHRT. I thank the gentleman from Colorado.
Madam Speaker, I was just on the steps of the Capitol speaking to a
Cold War veteran who served this country admirably and then went to
serve the Fire Department in the State of Mississippi. He has driven
all the way from Mississippi to Washington, D.C., because he is
concerned that the health care bill that's going to be passed is going
to increase the debt for his grandchildren and his children. He had
other lists of concerns that he had, but primarily he was concerned
about the debt.
We know for a fact that since October 1, the beginning of this fiscal
year, we have overspent by $655 billion. This is money we do not have
that we've gone ahead and spent. We've borrowed this money and applied
it to programs that I don't believe we needed. So he's concerned that,
looking at this health care bill and the current projections, the total
cost outlays over the next 10 years is $1.2 trillion, money, again,
that we don't have, and so we're going to have to borrow from
somewhere. And that takes into consideration that there's only 6 years
of health care benefits that are going to be applied in the first 10
years and 10 years of higher taxes. So he's very concerned about the
direction. If you go on to the next 10 years, it's going to be over
$1.5 trillion that we will have to borrow for the health care bill that
we are about to vote on tomorrow. He's concerned about that as well.
Where's the money going to come from?
The gentleman from New Jersey was very concerned about us overlooking
something that may have been or may not have been in the bill. The
concern that the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee had is
that under the way the bill is currently written, that people who are
on TRICARE would be forced into the government exchange, and so he
corrected that earlier today. Now it wasn't me that came up with that
solution. I was aware of the problem, but even the chairman of the
House Armed Services Committee, the Democrat Chairman Ike Skelton from
Missouri, was concerned, so we had the legislative change. What else is
hidden in this bill?
Now we have the bill, and yet we're not going to know the entire
contents as far as what the American public is concerned about or what
they will know. So if you look at the Senate bill that's going to be
passed, fortunately, it's not going to be deemed to be passed with a
rule. And I think that's a tremendous victory for the American people.
Yesterday the American people were very upset that we were going to
deem the Senate bill passed. Today 50,000 people showed up to protest
it. Calls came in. You couldn't even call into our switchboard, 202-
224-3121 was blocked because of all the calls coming in, and their
voices were heard. So tomorrow we're going to get a separate vote on
the Senate bill. The people of America spoke out. They didn't want it
to be deemed to be law. They wanted a separate vote. Now they want us
to vote against it.
There is a whole bunch of people standing out here on the east side
of the Capitol near the steps. They are protesting the health care
bill. What they're saying is, Kill the bill. They're chanting it over
and over and over again. Are we going to listen to their voices? Are we
going to listen to what they're saying? What they know of what's in the
Senate bill and the reconciliation bill they don't like. So tomorrow we
hope that we can explain to them what's in the bill. Then they'll make
an informed decision, and hopefully they will encourage their Members
of Congress to vote against the bill.
Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, I would inquire of the minority if they
have any additional speakers.
Mr. LAMBORN. There will be one more speaker.
Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance
of my time.
Mr. LAMBORN. I yield the balance of my time to Representative Cassidy
from Louisiana.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 2 minutes.
Mr. CASSIDY. My colleague from New Jersey made a point earlier that
he wasn't sure that many people on this side have read the bill. I have
read the bill, and some things are quite apparent to me. One, there is
a loss of freedom. Thou shalt buy insurance or else thou shalt pay a
penalty. You shall provide insurance to your employees or thou shalt
pay a penalty. But I think the point that Mr. Tiahrt made is the, if
you will, the ultimate sacrifice of freedom.
As one said, The power to tax is the power to destroy. Well, clearly
as we expand Medicaid, we are going to ultimately shift taxes both to
the Federal taxpayer and to the State taxpayer. Now this plan will
increase Medicaid to 133 percent of the Federal poverty level. That has
tremendous implications. One implication, for example, is that the
physicians will be paid extremely poorly, so poorly that they won't be
able to see the patients. I looked up in New Jersey, for example,
Medicaid only pays 37 percent of Medicare rates to physicians to see
the patient. They only pay 37 percent. Now as it turns out, that's
below a physician's cost. Physicians would like to see the patients.
It's too low of a reimbursement.
There was just an article in the New York Times, and the New York
Times held up an example of a woman from Michigan on Medicaid who could
not get treatment for her cancer because the Medicaid reimbursement was
so low that she was unable to find a physician who could afford to
treat her. I've read the bill. If we think this bill is a way to
provide insurance for the uninsured, I would like to invite you to come
to the public hospital where I've worked for 20 years, where many of
the patients that I see are on Medicaid, and they come to the public
hospital because, despite Medicaid, they still cannot go to a private
facility.
In fact, I'm struck. For 20 years, I have been seeing politicians in
Washington saying that we've now fixed health care. Consistently they
have overpromised and underfunded. Now I think what's coming down is,
this bill is a question of whether this time, this time indeed is
different. Whether or not we were not overpromising, even though we're
promising greatly, and we're adequately funding. The reality, I am
afraid, is going to be the same as it has been in the past.
Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, I wish to ask my colleagues to support
House Resolution 900, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the
gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo) that the House suspend the rules
and agree to the resolution, H. Res. 900, as amended.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds
being in the affirmative, the ayes have it.
Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
[[Page H1788]]
____________________