[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 156 (2010), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 4052-4057]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 4053]]

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.
  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. 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.

[[Page 4054]]

  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 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

[[Page 4055]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 4056]]


  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----
  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.

[[Page 4057]]

  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.

                          ____________________