Honoring 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.

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

floor, they are not an accurate representation of facts and they, frankly, do dishonor to this bill and this debate.

Will the gentleman yield?

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.

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?

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.

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.

I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.

I yield to the gentleman.

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.

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----

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.

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.

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.

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----

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.

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.

Will the gentleman yield?

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----

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.)

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).

Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague, Mr. Andrews from New Jersey.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I would inquire of the minority if they have any additional speakers.

Madam Speaker, I will continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I wish to ask my colleagues to support House Resolution 900, and I yield back the balance of my time.

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