[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 28, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H198-H204]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE PRESIDENT'S CREDIBILITY GAP
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 7, 2003, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I took to the floor this morning during our
morning hour debate to express my concern over what I call the
President's credibility problem. I talked about a credibility problem
in the context of not only what we expect to be in tonight's State of
the Union Address, but also by reference to the State of the Union
Address that the President made last year.
What I am talking about essentially when I mention a credibility
problem is the fact that the President essentially makes promises about
what he is going to do to solve the Nation's problems, particularly the
economic downturn; but when we look at what he proposes, the action
that he proposes to solve the problem, it does not really solve the
problem.
So the promise is made essentially by the President that we are going
to turn around the economic downturn, but when we look at the proposals
that he announces to accomplish that goal, there is no way that they
could accomplish that goal, because they are not designed to accomplish
that goal.
The credibility problem exists in so many areas. It is not only with
regard to his economic plan, his so-called stimulus plan, it is also
relative to the deficit. The President indicated last year that the
deficit would be small, that it would be taken under control. Now we
know that the deficit is likely to be at least $300 billion, and I
would venture to say that if the President were able to get his
economic stimulus package, his promise to make his tax cuts from last
year permanent, to follow through and pay for a potential war in Iraq,
that we would probably end up with a deficit that could be upwards of
$2 trillion.
That credibility problem also exists with regard to a number of other
issues; for example, health care. The President says that we are going
to reform Medicare and we are going to provide a prescription drug
benefit for seniors in the context of Medicare. What we find out, and
we will hear about tonight, supposedly, is a privatization plan for
Medicare that does not guarantee a prescription drug benefit unless you
leave traditional Medicare and you join an HMO or some other type of
private insurance.
The list goes on. We are told that we are going to do things for
veterans, and then we see cuts in money for veterans' health clinics.
We are told that we are going to implement a situation where no child
is going to be left behind in terms of public education. That is the
President's theme. But then we find that there is a huge credibility
gap, a huge difference between the rhetoric and the reality, because,
in fact, money for education is being cut.
{time} 1445
Affirmative action is another example. The President says he wants
diversity, and he appears to give the impression that he is favorable
to affirmative action. But then he asks the Justice Department to file
a suit against the University of Michigan because of their affirmative
action program. And I am not trying to imply the President is
purposefully trying to deceive anyone, but I think the reality is that
his ideas of what are going to accomplish the goals that he sets out to
accomplish are very different from reality. And whether it is an
economic plan, whether it is his idea of affirmative action, whether it
is his idea of the deficit or his idea on health care, most of these
ideas do not actually translate into any action that will accomplish
the goals that the President commits himself to.
I guess the worst example in this respect right now and the one that
I think is the most injurious is with regard to the economy. We know
that the economy has taken a significant down-
[[Page H199]]
turn. We know that some action needs to be taken here in Congress so it
does not get worse. And yet if you look at what the President has
proposed, it does not accomplish the goal. He calls it an economic
stimulus package that is going to boost the economy. Well, let me go
through some of the things that he claims he is going to do with regard
to the economy and then talk about the reality of what would really
happen with his proposal.
He claims that his plan will have an immediate boost to the economy.
That is why he calls it a stimulus package. But the Bush plan fails on
the most basic level by not delivering the immediate stimulus needed to
help boost the economy in the short term. By the White House's own
projection, less than 10 percent of the package's total spending comes
this year in 2003 when the economy is weak and people are out of work;
and as a consequence, even by his own estimates, the Bush plan will
create only 190,000 jobs this year, only 11 percent of the jobs lost
since President Bush took office.
Let me give you another claim. The President claims that his plan is
fair and is going to provide 92 million taxpayers with an average tax
cut of $1,083. Unfortunately, as with the last tax cut that we had from
the President in 2001, this one overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy.
Once it is fully phased in, the Bush plan provides more than 40 percent
of the tax breaks to the richest 1 percent, with less than 17 percent
going to the vast majority of Americans.
I could go on and on. I see one of my colleagues is here, and I would
like to yield time. I just want to mention the one thing, though, that
is perhaps the most important in terms of what I call the ``credibility
gap'' with regard to the President.
He talks about the fairness of his economic plan because it stops the
double taxation of stock dividends. Well, first, double taxation of
stock dividends is not a huge problem because much of corporate income
is not taxed at all now. Corporations often make aggressive use of tax
shelters to avoid paying any tax on profits. Take, for example, the CSX
Corporation. Over the 4 years, 1998 to 2001, CSX had a cumulative net
profit of $934 million but received a net Federal income tax refund of
$164 million. And it paid dividends in every quarter.
I think if there is anything that is in his economic plan that has
received the most attention in terms of its inability to accomplish the
goal of giving the economy a boost is his effort to eliminate the
taxation on dividends. Because, really, no economist that I know has
suggested that somehow that is going to accomplish the goal. And it has
gotten so bad that even a significant amount of Republicans oppose his
dividend tax cut. In fact, today, most significantly the House
Committee on Ways and Means chairman, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Thomas), Republican, had said that he had serious questions about
the dividend tax cuts. It is an article that is in today's Washington
Post. And we will develop this a little more. But I just want to stress
over and over again how important it is to look at the President's
actions and what he proposes, not his rhetoric about what he is going
to accomplish.
Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I thank him for
his leadership on this issue.
Tonight the President will deliver his State of the Union address
setting out the challenges facing America in the war on terrorism and
his plans for economic recovery. From my seat in this Chamber, I will
be listening for one word in particular, ``sacrifice.''
The word sacrifice should be a natural for a State of the Union
address given at a time when the Nation is at war, when we are
confronted with the need to defend against new and varied threats to
our security, everything from small pox to shoulder-launched missiles
that can shoot down commercial aircraft.
Our men and women in uniform are certainly sacrificing. Tens of
thousands have been called up, leaving their jobs, their families,
often on very short notice and at great financial and personal costs.
But what about the average American who is not on active duty or in the
reserves? How will we be called upon to make our own contribution to
the security and prosperity to the United States?
The centerpiece of the administration's new agenda, and likely his
speech tonight, is a $674 billion tax cut weighted heavily towards
America's wealthiest families. Can this be the sacrifice that we will
be called upon to make with our most prosperous families being asked to
make the largest sacrifice by suffering their taxes to be cut the most?
In every conflict since the Civil War, the Commander in Chief has
called for an increase in revenues to meet the national defense. Can we
have more butter, more guns and no sacrifice? Apparently not.
Senate appropriators just cut $8 billion for increased security at
our ports, cut $362 million for border security, cut $500 million for
police and fire departments who will be first on the scene of any
terrorist disaster, cut $534 from job training, cut $1 billion from our
schools, underfunding the President's own education initiative. The
President's proposal also does nothing to alleviate the States' own
budget crises and their correspondingly massive cuts in health care,
education and welfare.
Ending the taxation, the double taxation of dividends might be good
policy in a vacuum, taking some of the vast fluctuations out of the
market. Coupled with reforms that end the no-taxation of other
corporate earnings, the provision could be made revenue-neutral; but
the administration's proposal is not coupled with other reforms and at
a cost of $364 billion is far from revenue-neutral. Because the plan
would have little effect on current spending and is permanent, it would
also do little to boost our sagging economy, while doing a lot to
increase our long-term national debt.
But most importantly, the President's proposal is not made in a
vacuum. We have so much work to be done to protect the homeland, and we
still suffer the lingering effects of a recession. We have lost almost
2 million jobs in the last 2 years and cannot afford tax cuts that
would neither stimulate the economy nor help those most in need. Many
of us that supported tax cuts when we were at peace and enjoying
historic surpluses must vigorously oppose them now that we are at war
and in debt.
As the President's own economic advisors will be the first to admit,
small business is the driving force for economic growth and the
government's ability to positively impact the economy through fiscal
policy is limited.
Probably the most significant contribution the Federal Government
made to the prosperity of the 1990s was the difficult decision to
balance the budget and keep interest rates low. But now we are back to
the days of deficits as far as the eye can see. White House budget
director Mitch Daniels can only say that the new red ink is nothing to
hyperventilate about, which raises the question, where have the fiscal
conservatives gone?
Americans are a proud and generous people who are more than willing
to sacrifice in a worthy cause. If, instead, we are to give ourselves a
gift no other war generation has given itself, we will denude our
ability to defend the homeland or, at best, shift to our children
responsibility to pay for our economic health and safety.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
California (Mr. Schiff), and I want to, in particular, mention two
things that he stressed which I think fit into this concern that I have
about what I call the credibility gap: the fact that the President
makes certain commitments about how he is going to deal or solve the
problems we have, but then he does not follow through with his actions.
One thing the gentleman made a very good point about was the homeland
security. What is really in many people's minds, the most important
issue right now, is homeland security, worried about another attack by
terrorists. The President made much of the fact that he was creating a
new homeland security department and that this was going to be a
priority. And, yet, as the gentleman said, when we go back to our
districts, literally, a week does not go by when one town or someone
who is from a civil defense program or a fire department or a mayor or
a State legislator complains to me about how the funds have not come
back to the counties or to the municipalities to deal
[[Page H200]]
with homeland security issues. These are basic things. You need money
for certain purposes if you are going to make us more secure.
In my case in New Jersey in the counties I represent, we had over 200
people die at the World Trade Center. I remember during that whole
incident one of the things that a lot of the local defense people
talked about is the need to upgrade communication systems, and they
were looking for Federal funds for that.
The President makes a big to-do about homeland security, and I am
sure he will mention it tonight in his State of the Union address, but
does not follow through with the funding so that we can improve
communication, for example, in New Jersey for homeland security
purposes. Then again he is not making good on his commitment.
The gentleman also mentioned the issue with regard to State aid which
I think is so crucial. The Democrats have said that as part of an
economic stimulus package we will give a significant amount of money
back to the States. I think it is $30 to $40 billion, or something like
that, because we know that they face a huge fiscal crisis. But not only
is he not providing for any money to go back to the States for any kind
of significant purpose, but as I understand it with this tax dividend,
elimination of the tax dividend, it actually makes the States' fiscal
crises even worse.
The way it does this is, first, the Bush plan to eliminate Federal
taxes on corporate dividends will lead to a drop in State revenues;
since State income tax laws are tied to the Federal law, the States
will also generally stop taxing dividends. And his proposal to end
taxation of dividends will cost State governments $4 billion this year
and $45 billion to $50 billion over the next decade according to Harley
Duncan, executive director of the Federation of Tax Administrators.
So he will make the situation of the State even worse, and I am glad
that the gentleman pointed that out among the other things he did.
Mr. Speaker, I see our new colleague from Maine is here. I just
wanted to say, I know this is not necessarily on point, although I
think it is related to what we are talking about, I just wanted the
gentleman to know I admire him greatly for his role with the
prescription drug plan in Maine, and what he and the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Allen) and others have tried to do as Democrats to improve
the situation with regard to the costs of prescription drugs.
Once again tonight we understand that the President is going to talk
about Medicare reform, but again his promise of Medicare reform falls
flat because he is talking about a prescription drug benefit that you
would only get if you go outside of Medicare and buy a private plan. I
remember the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) talking about the
problem. I do not know if this gentleman has any HMOs that take
Medicare in Maine anymore, but these gentlemen are doing a good job
trying to deal with that issue, and I think the President is just
coming up with smoke and mirrors.
Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Speaker, I rise on the day when President Bush will
deliver his State of the Union address to America. I can tell you that
in Maine we are proud of America and hopeful about the future. But we
are also concerned about where we are today. We are concerned because
Maine's rate of unemployment keeps rising, in some counties as high as
9 percent, and in some labor-market areas as high as 32 percent
unemployment. We are concerned because we have lost over 23,000
manufacturing jobs in the last 8 years. And we are concerned because
just 3 weeks ago we received devastating news that Great Northern Paper
Company, where I worked for 29 years and one of the largest employers
in my district, has filed Chapter 11, and both mills have been shut
down since December 26.
I know that across the country people are hurting and they need our
help. Unfortunately, I do not believe that the plan the President will
discuss tonight will bring that help.
{time} 1500
The so-called economic stimulus package is based on tax cuts that go
primarily to the wealthiest Americans. It does nothing to create jobs
or fuel the economic activity that would help folks back home at Great
Northern Paper Company.
Mr. Speaker, there is another way. Today I ask the President along
with my colleagues here on both sides of the aisle to at least consider
the Democratic stimulus plan. This plan means targeted tax relief for
working families, 1 million new jobs, money in the pockets of average
Americans, a boost for consumer demand and business investment.
The Democratic plan does all this, and it does it living within our
means. It is fiscally sound. It does not borrow from our children or
our grandchildren, burying them with debt and taxing them with interest
on that debt.
Mr. Speaker, we all have to work together on this because today
Americans' number one worry is the economy. Americans are worried about
whether their jobs will be there tomorrow. Americans are worried about
earning a decent wage, and Americans are worried about being able to
afford the same medicines as everyone else. That is why making
prescription drugs affordable for all Americans should be a central
part of our economic plan.
In Maine we created a law that allows the State to negotiate with
drug companies that uses the free market to get a better deal for
consumers. We called it the Maine Rx program. In the coming weeks I
will introduce legislation in this House to bring that historic
innovation to the rest of the Nation. It is called America's Rx because
all Americans deserve to have their government work on their behalf and
using the free market system to get them affordable medicines.
This means a lot to real people. A friend of mine, a man who worked
next to me at the paper mill for almost three decades, has cancer. He
cannot retire. He would have no health benefits if he does, and he
cannot afford his medicine on his own. He has to keep working while he
is sick, but now, with the company in bankruptcy, he does not know what
he is going to do.
These are the kind of people we need to help. This is why the cost of
prescription drugs is so important, and this is why keeping people
working in their jobs is so important, and this is why the health of
our economy is so very important.
I look forward to working with my colleagues here in Congress to
create a real economic stimulus package, and to create real job
security, and to create real health policies that works for all the
people.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, again, I want to thank my colleague from
Maine for his comments, and let me say, first of all, that when he
introduces his America's Rx bill, I would be glad to be one of the
cosponsors because I looked at it, I read about it, and I think it is a
very good and needed legislation. He points out very effectively again
why it is important for us to speak out on the Medicare issue and on
the prescription drug issue.
And again, I sound like I am just being critical of the President,
but I think on this one, it is just a perfect example of where he is
going to be giving the impression tonight that somehow he is going to
reform Medicare, he is going to provide a prescription drug program,
but then when we look at the data, it is just not there.
It is essentially a privatization of Medicare. It essentially says if
a person is willing to join an HMO or if they are willing to take
Federal dollars and get into some other kind of private program, we
will provide them with a prescription drugs benefit, but for the vast
majority of the Americans who either will not want to get out of
traditional Medicare or will not even have the option, because in a lot
of States, particularly more rural States, they do not even have the
option of an HMO, it is not going to be meaningful.
We have worked for a couple of years now, and we know that there are
very simple ways of addressing this problem. One of the ways to deal
with the costs is our colleague from Maine's proposal, we call it the
Allen bill, that would basically limit how much prescription drugs can
be charged for, and I have been a cosponsor of that, but we also have a
Democratic plan for a benefit package that would simply expand
Medicare, create a new Part C or D, which is very much like what we do
now for Part B with the doctor bills. A
[[Page H201]]
person pays $25 a month, they get 80 percent of the cost of their
prescription drugs paid for by the Federal Government. They have a $100
deductible, and it is guaranteed to everybody. Everybody who wants it
under Medicare gets it. They do not have to join an HMO. They do not
have to go outside of traditional Medicare to get it, and that is the
only way or the most effective way that we are going to accomplish the
goal of guaranteeing a prescription drug benefit.
The President not only does not do that, but he is looking to
basically revamp Medicare itself and privatize it because he says there
is not enough money, and I just hope that the public understands that
we need to keep the drumbeat going so they understand what he is really
doing, that he is really not credible on this issue. And I appreciate
the fact that my colleague is here, and I will make sure that I
cosponsor that bill when he is about to introduce it.
I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas, who was already here this
evening talking about the problems with the Bush economic stimulus
plan.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman from New
Jersey (Mr. Pallone) knows, I was here earlier, and I just wanted to
add two or three points to the discussion that I think are very
important.
One of the points that I did not get a chance to make is to report
some of the numbers that we are entertaining as relates to this whole
idea of war. We made it very, very clear that as it relates to fighting
terrorism, there is clearly no divide, and for some reason or another,
there seems to be a media block, a mental block or some translation
block that in this Congress no one disagrees on the fight against
terrorism. In fact, right now we are spending $1 billion a month in
Afghanistan, where most of us joined in the vote to give the President
the authority to do so and, of course, the expenditures to do so.
The real issue is making choices. Right now we can make a choice as
relates, of course, to the Iraqi war. That is looking to cost at least
$100 billion or maybe upwards to a trillion dollars. So when we talk
about these choices, my colleague's legislation from Maine that I hope
to join as well, we are talking about making the political solution or
looking to the political solution as relates to Iraq so that we can put
the dollars in to fight terrorism, to build up the Homeland Security
Department, to do what the motion to recommit just offered to do, which
is to pay more dollars for the first responders.
I am particularly concerned of getting dollars to the city. The U.S.
Congress and mayors just met recently talking about the devastation
they are facing. I just mentioned that the State of Texas has billions
of dollars in debt, and I would like to see us get block grants to the
State, but, more specifically, dollars to the city, so that money for
first responders, paramedics, firefighters, police, that can really
address the question of terrorism in all segments of cities.
Cities have inner cities. They have housing developments. They have
high stock housing. They have low stock housing. They have
neighborhoods that are better off than others, but all of those people
will have to be protected if we are under attack in terms of a
terrorist attack, and clearly those cities who need resources to
rebuild, to fight off a bioterrorist attack, to do the various
immunizations that may be necessary, and we do not have the necessary
funds.
Secretary Ridge will need the dollars to, in fact, put his Department
together, even though many people say 170,000, they will just be moving
over. There is a lot of logistical dollars that have to be utilized in
order to make it work. So I wanted to lay the choice on the table that
we have to make, and if we made the choice to completely fund a
guaranteed Medicare prescription drug benefit, we would not have to
worry about an HMO plan. We would not have to worry about what happened
to me in my community just about 2 years ago where six HMOs abruptly
left HMO-Medicare, left the community, which left seniors with no HMO
to provide them coverage.
So I have seen what happens when HMOs leave a market and say the
reason why we are leaving it is because we cannot make any money. It is
far better to address specifically the Medicare prescription drug
benefit, but let me also say it is far better to address the whole
concept of health care in America to the extent that we have so many
uninsured, and we need to respond to that as quickly as we can.
I believe that we can use the moneys that are now being used for war
for expanded unemployment benefits to 52 weeks; to increase the minimum
wage, which we have not talked about for a long period of time; full
funding of Head Start; and then, of course, the full funding of
Medicaid for public hospitals; and, of course, the Medicare fix that I
think we need that our letter suggests should go forward, and that is
to make sure physicians' money are either frozen or increased. I wanted
to just overemphasize that.
And let me close by saying, I have always offered these words. These
are frightening words because for some reason or another we have taken
to believing a country that was built on immigrants now at the fault,
that we have a problem that we have because of immigration. I think
not. I think that we can be secure in homeland security by strong
funding, but I think that as well we need to look at some of the issues
that require enhanced funding of the INS so they can do their job of
enforcement, but also do their job of allowing people to access
legalization, like a bill that many of us supported, Republicans and
Democrats, the restatement or the reinstatement of 245(i) to allow
families to be reunited. That takes dollars in order to work.
We need to pass the legislation, but in order to implement it, these
are the kinds of values and legislative initiatives that I would hope
that we would hear about. But more importantly, I would hope that we
would energize the Congress by passing this kind of approach to
governing America's business, a stimulus that is long term, Medicare
guaranteed drug benefit that answers the cries of seniors for about 6
years, and other legislative initiatives that I have just mentioned
that truly help to rebuild the country and ease the pain of so many
Americans now that are suffering under this economic crisis that we are
in.
I thank the gentleman very much and for his leadership on some of
these issues. I hope we will get to work in the 108th Congress.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, absolutely, and again, particular
statements the gentlewoman made about homeland security and the
potential war, it goes back to what I was talking about, this whole
idea of, I call it the State of the Union credibility gap. In other
words, the President promises to accomplish a goal, but no action is
taken that would achieve that goal, and I think it is very true with
the homeland security issue.
In other words, we get up and talk about how we are going to protect
the homeland, but then when the money comes for the first responders
back at home in our towns or counties, money has not been there; and
even the war in terms of a potential war in Iraq, the budget does not
include, the President's budget does not include the cost of fighting
the war. So when we talk about this deficit, which we estimate to be
about $300 billion at this point, it does not include the cost of the
war, which could be 2-, 300-, maybe as much, and put us in deficit to
$600 billion, and I think that is the problem.
We are getting a lot of rhetoric from the President, but we are not
getting the action that goes along with it, and I know I have my
colleague here from Ohio who is going to talk about that also in the
sense of the veterans' benefits. I had said earlier, and I know he is
going to get into this in more detail, but the President gets up here
and talks about how he is a champion of the veterans, but then the
White House cuts funding for VA health clinics, forcing 164,000
veterans to be turned away, and I am hearing this all the time in my
district about how the money is not there.
I appreciate the gentleman coming down here, and I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding to me.
In just literally a few hours the President is going to walk into
this Chamber. It is going to be filled with all of the Representatives
and Senators and President's Cabinet, members of the Supreme Court,
some members of
[[Page H202]]
the diplomatic corps. The press is going in the balcony. It is going to
be one of those great occasions, and the President is going to stand
and deliver the State of the Union Address, and he is going to talk
about priorities, and he is going to use a lot of words.
And I have been here long enough to know that talk is easy, action is
sometimes difficult, and I want to speak specifically about the
priorities that this administration is pursuing.
At a time when we are on the brink of war, hundreds of thousands of
our young men and women sent across the sea, possibly to engage in a
conflict that could cost them their lives, what message are we sending
to those who have already fought the battle, who have fought in past
wars, who have paid with their health, sometimes their limbs? What
message are we sending when we start nickel and diming the veterans of
this country?
I have an older gentleman who is coming into this chamber tonight as
my guest from Woodsfield, Ohio, a little town along the Ohio River. His
name is Herman Zerger.
{time} 1515
Herman is a World War II veteran. He voted for the very first time
crouched in a foxhole in France. And he said a runner brought a ballot
by and he was able to mark his ballot for Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Herman has not missed voting in an election since that very first time
that he voted.
I asked him to come here tonight because he is a World War II
veteran. He is a treasure. He is a treasure to me and to my district.
He is the kind of person that this country ought to be honoring and
showing respect for and gratitude toward. But what is this
administration doing to the Herman Zergers across this country? Let me
tell my colleagues what they are doing.
About a year ago, the VA made a decision to increase the copayment
for the cost of a prescription drug that our veterans must pay from $2
a prescription to $7 a prescription. Many veterans that I represent get
10 or more prescriptions a month. That is $70 a month. And then they
get a 3-month supply at a time through the VA, which is $210 for a
veteran who may be on a fixed income. Think about it. At a time when we
are contemplating giving over $600 billion in a tax cut to the richest
5 percent of the people who live in this country, we are increasing the
cost of medicine for our veterans.
Let me talk about another decision the Veterans Administration has
made. Last August, they sent out a memo to all of their health care
providers; and they said to their health care providers, too many
veterans, and I am paraphrasing obviously, but this is what they said,
too many veterans are coming in for services. We do not have enough
money to provide those services, and so this is how we are going to
deal with it. As a health care provider, you are no longer able to
participate in a community health fair to tell veterans what services
they are entitled to. You cannot send out newsletters telling veterans
what services they are entitled to. You cannot make public service
announcements telling veterans what services they are entitled to.
It is a gag rule on the VA health providers, an absolute gag rule. I
call it the ``If they do not ask, we will not tell policy.'' We are
saying to the veterans, if you do not ask what you are entitled to, we
will not tell you what you are legally entitled to receive. It is a
shameful policy.
And then the VA made a more recent decision, which my colleague
referred to briefly. There are seven priority groupings within the
veterans system. The VA system took group seven, priority group seven,
and divided it and made a new priority group, priority group eight they
call it. And then they told these priority group eight veterans, and
these are people who have served our country honorably, they told them
they can no longer participate in the VA health care system. Now, if
they are already in there, they will not kick them out. But if they
need to enroll, they cannot.
How much money does a veteran have to make to be in a priority eight
group? Well, it depends on where they live in the country, but
somewhere between $26,000 and $30,000 a year. So if a veteran makes
more than that, the VA says, no, no, you cannot enroll in our health
care system. You may have high prescription drug costs, you may have
serious health conditions, but we cannot afford to provide you care.
Now, think about it. We are raising the prescription drug costs for
our veterans, we are placing a gag order on our VA health care
providers, telling them they cannot tell veterans about the services
that they are entitled to, and then we take an entire group of veterans
and we just say, you make too much money.
I want to tell my colleague what a veteran said to me a couple of
days ago. He said, ``Congressman Strickland, when they drafted me into
the Armed Services and asked me to go fight for my country, they never
asked me how much money I made then. But now they are saying, well, if
you make $30,000, that is too much money; we cannot afford to provide
you with VA health care.''
Let me mention just one more thing in closing. I visited a group of
veterans in Steubenville, Ohio, about 4 days ago, and they told me
about a health fair that they conduct in this little county, Jefferson
County, Ohio. They do it every year at the local high school. They do
it on a Saturday, using all volunteers. The nurses and the doctors that
participate in this health fair give of their own time on a Saturday.
They average annually about 500 veterans coming to that health fair.
Last summer, they were able to detect four cases of mouth cancer. Four
cases. And those people are now getting treatment.
Under this rule that the VA has imposed, this gag order, that group
of veterans can no longer conduct this annual health fair. Think about
that. Think about that. What have we become if in our country, as rich
as we are, we are willing to take over $600 billion and give it to the
wealthiest among us and yet we are cutting back on the services that we
are providing to those who have served this country in the military? It
is a shameful set of circumstances.
I hope the President talks about veterans tonight. And when he talks
about veterans, I hope he remembers what this administration is doing
and that he reverses course. I would love for the President to announce
tonight that he is removing the gag order on the veterans health care
providers. I would like for the President to say we are reversing the
decision to increase the cost of prescription drugs for veterans. I
would like for the President to say priority eight veterans are welcome
into the VA health care system because they served our country and we
owe them.
So I thank the gentleman for giving me a chance to talk about this
issue. It is one that really troubles me because I think it says
something about the values that our country is embracing at this point
in our historical time period. I believe we need to change course, to
reverse course and start treating our veterans with the respect and the
honor due them.
So I thank the gentleman for giving me a chance to speak to that
issue, and I look forward to hearing from others of our colleagues as
we talk about the economic circumstances facing this country.
Mr. PALLONE. I want to thank my colleague, Mr. Speaker. I know that
he has always been a champion for veterans. And that gag rule, I read
about it in the paper; and it upset me a great deal.
In fact, in the last 2 weeks something similar happened with Medicare
providers. They sent out to the contractors who run the Medicare
program a memo essentially saying the same thing, that we do not want
you to go out and do any kind of outreach to tell people about what
services are available under Medicare. The sad thing about it is that
we are often dealing with frail people. We are dealing with a lot of
elderly people with Medicare and also with these veterans benefits. As
the gentleman mentioned, in some small towns they may not have the
normal means of finding out about what is available.
So it is really unfortunate, and again it goes back to this
credibility gap I keep talking about. The President gives the
impression, I am sure he will do it again tonight, about how he wants
to provide Medicare coverage and expand for prescription drugs and all
these great things in the health
[[Page H203]]
care sphere, but in reality we find these memos telling the departments
not to tell anybody what is even available now, let alone expand the
program. It is totally inconsistent.
Mr. STRICKLAND. If my colleague will yield, I believe the VA has
broken the law when they imposed this gag order. I have asked the
General Accounting Office to make a determination regarding whether or
not the law was broken.
It is my understanding that before such a policy change can be made,
that any agency of the Federal Government must bring that policy change
back to this Congress for approval or disapproval. The VA has failed to
do that. So I am looking forward to getting a determination, perhaps
within the next few days; and I believe I am correct in my assumption
that the law has not been followed and that the VA is in violation of a
law that was passed by this House and by the Senate requiring them to
inform the Congress whenever such a policy change occurs. They did not
do that in this case.
Mr. PALLONE. Well, I appreciate what the gentleman has said; and I
thank him for coming down here, as he often does.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield now to my colleague from
Wisconsin.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New Jersey for
organizing this very important Special Order talking about the State of
health care in our country. And before the gentleman from Ohio leaves
the well, I want to commend him too for all the work that he has done
in regards to veterans issue and also for highlighting for a few
minutes this afternoon before the State of the Union address the
current state of affairs in regards to health care funding for our
veterans in this country generally.
Another very important topic that the gentleman did not address this
afternoon is the whole concurrent pay issue, and it is something we
have all supported, dealing with veterans benefits and disability
payments which are currently offset, and that we are trying to correct;
but the administration has refused to fund that.
Now, in a few hours, as my colleagues have indicated, the President
will be here in the well addressing the Nation, and really the world,
in giving us his speech on the State of the Union. We will hear a lot
of discussion in regards to Iraq this evening, in regards to probably
some of the other international crises which are currently confronting
the world and this Nation. Not just Iraq, but the situation in North
Korea, the conflict in the Middle East, the situation down in
Venezuela, all are very serious. But we have an obligation in this
Congress to do all that we possibly can to ensure the safety and the
security of our citizens, and we will move forward as a Nation in
addressing those concerns.
One of the things I continuously hear from folks back home in my
Third Congressional District in western Wisconsin is they also expect
us to walk and chew gum at the same time; to not just deal with the
national security threats that exist against us, but also deal with the
domestic challenges that now confront us.
As I travel around my congressional district, and I am sure it is
true for my friend from New Jersey as well, one of the paramount issues
that people want to talk about, because they are so concerned about it,
is the State of our health care system and the deficiency that they are
currently seeing; the fact we have so many people on the uninsured
rolls in this country, close to 44 million this year alone; the fact
there is a lot of cost shifting going on by our providers because of
the inadequacy of reimbursements rates and the impact that has on
double-digit premium increases on insurance policies that large and
small employers are offering their employees.
This is killing the backbone of our economy, and small business
owners in particular. We need to think of bold and creative solutions
to the health care crisis that we are facing, not to mention the
inadequacy of the current Medicare program and the lack of a
prescription drug program, which is long overdue. That is as key and
important a part of modern health care today, prescription drugs and
access and the affordability of prescription drugs, as hospital beds
were back in the mid-1960s when the Medicare program was first created.
One of my chief concerns as we move forward in this 108th Congress is
really the economic plan being pursued by the administration. It is one
being pursued with fiscal reckless abandon. They are currently
projecting close to a $300 billion deficit this year, which would set a
record, an all-time record, in budget deficits for our country. If the
economic plan that is currently being pursued with large new spending
increases and large new tax cuts continue to be pursued, we will be
looking at massive budget deficits throughout the remainder of this
decade and perhaps beyond.
This is all occurring at exactly the wrong moment, when we have an
aging population, close to 80 million baby boomers all marching in
lockstep to their retirement, which is going to start in a few short
years. We are not making the type of decisions that we need to make
today in order to prepare our country for that inevitability, which is
just around the corner.
It is kind of the 800-pound gorilla in this Chamber. Everyone knows
about it, but nobody really wants to talk about it or address it. I
would hope tonight that during the President's State of the Union
address he will touch upon the concerns that the health care industry
has, that our providers have in regards to the inadequacy of
reimbursements rates, but also what plan he has to turn the budget
around so we can get back to balance; so we can exercise some fiscal
discipline again in our budgetary decisions; so we can prepare the next
generation of Americans, our children and grandchildren, to deal with
the challenges that they will face in their lifetime.
One of my greatest fears, as the father of two little boys who are
only 4 and 6, is that we are setting them up for failure.
{time} 1530
Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the future generation of Americans who
we are going to leave a legacy of massive debt to, and at the same time
ask them to afford the programs for this massive baby boom retirement
which is going to start in a few short years.
Those are some of the issues that hopefully the President will also
delve into given the limited amount of time that he will have in the
State of the Union Address. I think these are crucial issues to the
people back in my district who are wondering how are we going to deal
with the massive budget deficits which jeopardize the long-term
economic security of our Nation, while also being able to make the
crucial investments that need to be made in the health care system, in
our education systems so our kids can stay competitive, and also in
preserving and conserving our natural resources in this country.
We need to walk and chew gum at the same time. We need to do this
together. Hopefully we will have an atmosphere of bipartisanship as we
move forward on these important issues in the weeks and months ahead.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentleman brought up this
issue of the debt. I would like to end this Special Order with that
issue because I think it is so important.
I remember when I was first elected, which was about 15 years ago
now, and a Member used to come down every afternoon or evening during
this time of Special Orders with a huge sort of digital clock that ran
the length of this podium here that had the amount of the debt and how
it was increasing every minute or 15 minutes, and the Republican Party
were in the minority then, and they made that a basic premise. We had
to get rid of this Federal deficit.
Finally when we did under President Clinton, the last couple of years
we had a surplus, that is when the economy was in the boom times. We
all know if we create a surplus, it helps the economy. The Federal
Government is not taking away money that private industry uses to
create new jobs and new production.
Even in the President's State of the Union Address last year, the
President said that he wanted to control the debt. If there was any
debt, it would be short-term, it would not continue to grow. Now all of
a sudden silence as if it does not matter anymore.
I have one statistic. It was in the New York Times January 16 when
the OMB Director Daniels suggested that
[[Page H204]]
the budget is not likely to be in surplus in the next 10 years. I do
not want to say that Republicans do not care, but they seem to be
really downplaying this as if it does not matter. The gentleman from
Wisconsin is right, this is essentially an inheritance tax on our
children. They are going to have to pay it back.
I wish we would hear something from the President about how he is
going to deal with this deficit because from what I can understand, if
we were able to implement his economic stimulus package, if we then
made the tax cuts that were passed last year permanent, and then add
the cost of the war in Iraq, which might be 2- to $300 billion, if that
happens, we could be talking about a couple-trillion-dollar deficit. I
do not understand how, and again it goes back to the credibility gap.
He makes commitments how we are going to keep the deficit under
control, and then we find out it is very much the opposite.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I believe now is as good a time as any for the
baby boom generation, this massive demographic bubble that is working
its way through our society and aging ever so gracefully, to step into
this political debate. I think the message is being delivered to them
that they can have it all, that they can have massive tax cuts today
and retirement security tomorrow, when it is really their generation
and the challenge that their generation poses that we need to come to
grips with.
I have to believe that the President is a good son, loyal and dutiful
and listens to his mom and dad. I think it would be wise if the
President were to listen to what his father said when it was proposed,
this type of economic plan was proposed to him back in the early 1980s,
where they would have huge increases in spending, coupled with large
tax cuts, which would lead to large budget deficits, which did occur
during the decade of the 1980s and the early 1990s. The first President
Bush called it voodoo economics because he knew what would transpire.
It is like deja vu all over again, the economic policies coming out
of this White House: Huge increases in spending, although they want to
claim to be the party of fiscal constraint. We had a 10 percent growth
in government spending last fiscal year alone. On the current track, we
are going to be pretty close to that this fiscal year. Double that with
the large tax cuts which have been enacted, with the increased spending
and the reduction in revenue, we are going to have massive budget
deficits forming. That is why the Office of Management and Budget,
their own economic analysts are saying $300 billion in projected
deficits this year alone without even counting a military obligation in
Iraq, which could blow the lid off everything else.
I feel there is time to recover. We have not slid too far down that
road yet where, without further budgetary discipline, we could not turn
this ship of state around in the nick of time. Unlike the decade of the
1980s and the early 1990s when these huge deficits accumulated, we do
not have the luxury of a decade of the 1990s to reduce the deficit and
start running some surpluses again in time for this massive retirement
that is about to begin with the baby boom generation.
We have a lot of work cut out for us this year, and hopefully some
people are starting to pay attention to the looming economic crisis
that budget deficits most assuredly will bring, and we will act
accordingly.
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. The whole goal of
this Special Order is to say do not mislead us. If we have a State of
the Union Address tonight, be honest where we are going, what we are
going to accomplish and what it is going to cost. We are not going to
be able to do it all, and the President basically has to confront that
issue, and I hope he does.
____________________