[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 65 (Tuesday, May 11, 2004)]
[House]
[Page H2736]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          FULFILLING OUR DUTY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the order of the House of 
January 20, 2004, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) is recognized 
during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, before I discuss the legislation that will be 
considered on the floor this week, I want to comment briefly on the 
continuing revelations about the abuse of Iraqi detainees in American 
custody and the need for vigorous congressional oversight through full 
and open committee hearings.
  I could not disagree with my friend, the majority leader, more when 
he says the idea of a congressional investigation is like, and I quote, 
``saying we need an investigation every time there is police brutality 
on the street.''
  The abuse of Iraqi detainees, as we are learning, is, unfortunately, 
not isolated, and responsibility extends up and down the military chain 
of command. We must not abdicate our constitutional responsibility as 
an independent, coequal branch of government, as some Members of the 
other body have stated.
  For example, the Senate majority leader is quoted today in 
Congressional Quarterly as saying, ``The Senate will continue to do its 
duty. We had several hearings last week. We will continue to maintain a 
close watch on the unfolding situation.'' In fact, they are having 
hearings this week.
  This shocking episode demands a full and open inquiry. It demands a 
bipartisan approach. I urge the Republican leadership to work with this 
side of the aisle in getting to the bottom of these abuses, in holding 
the responsible parties accountable and ensuring that it never happens 
again. The world expects no less, and we should expect no less 
ourselves.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, while the other body exercises vigorous oversight, 
this body will consider a Republican bill that will actually increase 
the budget deficit, which is projected at more than half a trillion 
dollars this year alone, and three health care bills that would do 
virtually nothing to help the uninsured.
  This Republican majority is not responding to America's needs. We 
can, we must, do better.
  The Republican bill to make the 10 percent income tax bracket 
permanent could win overwhelming, perhaps unanimous, support if it were 
paid for. Instead, it would add an estimated $218 billion to the 
national debt. Our children and grandchildren will pay that debt.
  The Democratic substitute, in contrast, is paid for. Unfortunately, 
Republican leaders believe that tax cuts are a freebie. In fact, the 
chairman of the House Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Nussle), said in March, and I quote, ``We don't believe that you 
should have to pay for tax cuts.''
  It is that mathematically challenged philosophy, that denial of 
reality that continues to stall negotiations on the 2005 budget. House 
Republicans refuse to pay for tax cuts. House Democrats, a bipartisan 
majority of the Senate and the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mr. 
Greenspan, fully support pay-as-you-go budget rules. In fact, if my 
Republican friends missed the comment of Chairman Greenspan last week, 
let me repeat it. He said, ``The free lunch has still not been 
invented.''
  This week, the Republican leadership will also put three health care 
bills on the floor, apparently in recognition of Cover the Uninsured 
Week.
  Today in America, the richest, most powerful Nation on the face of 
the Earth, 44 million Americans do not have health insurance; and that 
figure has increased by 4 million since President Bush took office. Yet 
none of the Republican health care bills directly addresses this 
growing problem.
  We have already passed two of these three bills, on medical liability 
and associated health plans, almost in exactly the same form; so we are 
simply repeating that which we have already done, presumably for 
political purposes as opposed to substance. The third, on Flexible 
Savings Accounts, would mostly benefit those who are already insured.
  House Democrats, by comparison, will introduce three health care 
bills this week that, together, would provide health insurance for more 
than half of the 44 million uninsured. These bills are aimed, Mr. 
Speaker, at three growing groups of uninsured: those with low income, 
retirees, and small businesses and the self-employed.
  I say to my friends on the Republican side, our constituents did not 
send us here to pretend to legislate, to repeatedly pass legislation so 
that it could go to the Senate. They sent us here to solve problems and 
fulfill our duty. This week, there is ample evidence that we are doing 
neither.

                          ____________________