[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 146 (Monday, November 7, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H9954-H9960]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Drake). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, it is an honor to be before the
House once again. We would like to thank the Democratic leadership for
allowing us to have this hour. This is the 30-Something Working Group.
Madam Speaker, we come to the floor night after night when we are in
session to talk about the differences as it relates to the budget or
response to natural disasters or the general functions of the
government and how it can be better on behalf of all Americans.
Tonight, as usual, we are joined by the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Delahunt) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz)
and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan). I would just like to talk for a
moment on the issue of budget, just to kind of set the Democratic
principles that we have within our budget, our budget alternative to
the majority side. And to explain to some of the Members and staff here
in the Capitol that as we know, and everyone does not know, that the
majority side, because they have more Members here in this House, they
actually prevail as it relates to legislation.
They would like to see a budget passed out of the Budget Committee,
and it is passed just on simple numbers on partisan lines. We do
commend one member of the Republican Caucus for voting with the
Democrats for a budget that balanced by 2010, and also does it in a way
that does not hurt everyday Americans or will play a counterproductive
role in achieving the goal of fiscal responsibility.
The Democratic alternative to the Republican budget, which we will
talk about tonight, does balance the budget by 2010. It also makes sure
that we include enforcement measures to protect Social Security, making
sure that we have budget enforcement procedures there to block tax or
spending legislation that would borrow large amounts of money or any
amount of money from the Social Security trust fund. I think that is
very important to the preservation of Social Security.
Also, we do more for education. There are $14 billion in cuts that
the Republicans have proposed. In our budget, we make no cuts
whatsoever because we know education is the future of this country, the
whole argument of making sure that our young people are on equal
footing, and even adult education is important. Vocational education is
important, to make sure that we cannot only compete, but we can be the
country to provide young people to make our country strong, not only in
the present but in the future.
I think it is important to point out that in our budget we have
protection for veterans, some $1.6 billion more than the Republican
budget, and over the next 5 years, $17 billion more than the Republican
budget. The cuts that the Republicans are making to veterans we will
talk about a little later. It is very unfortunate that that is a
proposal which has been put forth.
Also we have a commitment in our budget to communities and families.
I think it is important that we reflect on that, especially during this
time when we talk about devolution of taxation. We want to cut certain
taxes here and say we are doing a wonderful job and saving families and
communities from paying more taxes. In all actuality, the majority side
is cutting Medicaid. Medicare will be on the table as it relates to
this budget when it goes to conference; if it goes to conference, that
is going to turn the clock back on many families, and they are going to
have to kick in more to be able to make it happen.
{time} 2245
I just wanted to start off really talking about some of our
principles within our budget that we would like to see prevail, not
only here on this floor, we would also like to see, we talked about
last week, that the majority side, the Republicans, respect the spirit
of the rules of the House. We know when the budget comes up, if it
comes up, the gentleman from Massachusetts has been here longer than
any of us here, the majority side, they usually hold the voting clock
open not only for several minutes but as of recent several hours to see
it their way. There are a number of articles that are out that I know
that we are going to reference today that allude to that.
Last week the gentleman from Massachusetts brought out Congress Daily
A.M. This is what we get here in the Congress, we get an a.m., a p.m.
There is also a Congressional Quarterly magazine that comes out. This
is the outlook on the week at the beginning of the week. We all get it
here. We find out what is going on in different committees. Here is a
story which is the head story, House leadership this week are putting
some Members on the spot with the fact that they are going to take one
of their toughest votes in recent years. A $53.9 billion deficit
reduction package that is drafted would hit child support enforcement,
food stamps, Medicaid beneficiaries and student loans and would open
arctic and coastal areas to energy exploration. I think it is important
for us to understand that, of course, it is going to be a tough vote
because they are calling for tough cuts that is going to hurt America.
Mr. DELAHUNT. If my friend would yield for a moment, I do not know if
you are aware or had the opportunity to read the editorial today from
the New York Times, but it follows with what we read in the
Congressional A.M., so to speak. Let me just read the first paragraph
here:
That rare bird, the moderate Republican lawmaker, is suddenly in
sight, forcefully objecting to the House leadership's abominable
package of budget cuts. The 5-year, $54 billion proposal is
[[Page H9955]]
headed for a floor vote this week disguised as an overdue act of fiscal
responsibility and government savings. In truth, it is so over-the-top
in its inequities and giveaways that embarrassed moderates are actually
rebelling, withholding support unless some of the more outrageous
measures are killed.
Again, we do not know what is going to happen this week. The
Republicans are having discussions intraparty, clearly without any
consultation with our side of the aisle, but we know that is the rule
rather than the exception. What we do know, however, is that the Senate
Finance Committee reported a bill that cut Medicare, not Medicaid but
Medicare, by $5.7 billion over 5 years and by $40 billion over 10
years. What does that mean? What can those such as myself who will
shortly be eligible for Medicare at age 65 expect in terms of Medicare?
There is a group within the Republican caucus called the Republican
Study Group. They came in with a proposal to defer that so-called
prescription drug benefit for 2 years. I think we are going into very
uncertain times, uncharted waters, if you will.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. If the gentleman will yield, I think this brings up
a real contrast. First, we have made it a point here in the 30-
Something Working Group that this is not about party. This is about
doing what is best for the American people. Because together America
can be better. I just want to take this opportunity, having talked to
all of you already tonight, to just say we hope that the moderate
Republicans will stand up, because they can have a tremendous voice in
this body. Not in a partisan way but in a way that actually acts on
behalf of the American people. We hope that those moderate Republicans
step up to bat and help the Democrats moderate some of these drastic
cuts that are going to the most disadvantaged and the middle-class
people in this country.
I think it is important as the Senate has made cuts out of the
Finance Committee of almost $6 billion, the Medicare program if it
comes out of the Senate as is now, $6 billion in cuts. And then the
Republican Study Committee, the most conservative people in this
Chamber, want to delay the prescription drug bill. Here is an
opportunity where I think they could maybe take a Democrat initiative,
a Democratic Party initiative, to reduce the cost of the Medicare
prescription drug program. Instead of cut it and reduce benefits for
seniors, why not put a provision in the Medicare prescription drug bill
that says you can negotiate down the drug prices. Give the Secretary of
Health and Human Services the ability to negotiate down like the
Veterans' Administration does. Why not let the Secretary of Health and
Human Services do that? Why not let the reimportation from Canada to
help reduce the cost of drugs? There are a couple of provisions here
that will help reduce the cost without reducing the benefits to the
Medicare recipients.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I think it is important for those who might be viewing
our conversation right now for you to explain what you mean by
negotiating down in what was in the original prescription drug so-
called part D benefit plan that most of us voted against because of its
cost and because of the fact that it does not really deliver what
senior citizens need in terms of their prescription drugs.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. One of the provisions, as you said, was giving the
Secretary of Health and Human Services who basically in his department
administers the Medicare part D, this new prescription drug bill,
giving him the ability to go to Merck or Pfizer or one of the major
drug companies and basically say, on behalf of these millions of
Medicare recipients, if you want the contract to sell them drugs, you
need to sit down with me and talk price. The Democrats were not saying
we need to create a whole new bureaucracy. We did not say we have got
to put a whole new office building in Washington, D.C. to do it. Just
give the Secretary of Health and Human Services the ability to go and
basically negotiate down these drug prices.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Because of the bulk purchasing power.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. The bulk purchasing power, some studies say, would
at least save 10 to 15 percent. I have seen some people say it could
save up to 20 percent. So you take $700 billion and you take 10 or 15
or 20 percent of that, you are talking upwards of saving the American
taxpayer over the course of the next few years $140 billion that could
go into Katrina relief.
Mr. DELAHUNT. But that did not happen, did it?
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. That did not happen. The Republican majority in
this Chamber rejected the proposal.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If the gentleman will yield, I think we should
expand this conversation beyond just what this budget reconciliation,
budget cut proposal that we will consider this week means. Because what
was initially rolled out by the Republican Study Committee after
Katrina was this chart that you have right here. I think it would be
helpful for us to go through just exactly what the true intentions are
of the Republican Caucus. How many Republican members are there in the
caucus?
Mr. DELAHUNT. There are 228 Republican members here in this Chamber.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So 228 members of their caucus and more than
100 of those members, it is my understanding, are members of the
Republican Study Committee. So the vast majority of the Republican
Caucus subscribes to this proposal that the Republican Study Committee
put forward which is really what they would do if they could get their
moderate Republicans who are not members of the study committee to
swallow it. And because they know that they are in a precarious
situation in their own elections in many instances, they are the ones
that have been waffling on the fence here.
Let us go through what the Republicans would do if they had their
way. They would delay the Medicare prescription drug bill for 1 year
which the gentleman from Ohio already mentioned. They would reduce
Medicaid administrative spending. But they would go further than that.
They would increase the allowable copays in Medicaid. Let us describe
what that means. Fully one in four children in the United States of
America today get their health care from Medicaid. Often I know when
people think of Medicaid, they think of it as really just purely a
health care system that provides health care access to the poor. But if
one in four children are getting their health care from Medicaid, that
means you have that many children living in poverty in the United
States of America. What this proposal would do by increasing the copays
is requiring poor children's families to come more out of pocket to pay
for their health care.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I just want to expound on that point for just one
second. Those people who will see an increase in their copay will then
not go to utilize the care and the service, and they will end up like
Americans who do not have any health care, they will end up in an
emergency room much sicker than they were when they originally could
have had the problem taken care of because they were covered under
Medicaid, and the taxpayer is going to end up footing the bill in the
long run. We are not making this argument solely for moral reasons, but
this is an economic argument that is going to save the taxpayer money
in the long run and I think the Republican majority has proven in many
ways that they do not know how to govern, and one of the reasons is
they would rather spend more money on the tail end than do the right
thing and spend it up front.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If that were not bad enough, if making poor
children's families pull more money out of their pocket to pay for
their health care were not bad enough, the Republican Study Committee,
in fact, more than that, this budget cut proposal that we are going to
consider this week would allow increases in premiums for the first time
and it would also let health care providers, physicians and other
health care providers that are Medicaid providers, refuse care if a
beneficiary cannot afford the copayment. Right now they are not able to
refuse that care. There is a change in this proposal that would allow
people who provide health care to Medicaid recipients to refuse care if
they do not have the money to pull out of their pocket. Often we hear
the argument made about the skyrocketing costs of Medicaid, the greater
percentage that Medicaid has taken of the
[[Page H9956]]
Federal budget and of State budgets. While that may be true, what the
gentleman from Ohio has just outlined is absolutely accurate. These
cuts, which are supposed to be representative of savings, there is not
going to be savings. It is just going to be more cost shifting of
health care costs. Because these people who are on Medicaid now, they
have to get their health care from somewhere. Most good parents, any
good parent is not going to let their child suffer. What they do is
instead of being able to take their children to the doctor for well
baby visits and well child visits and make sure that the health care is
preventive as opposed to reactionary and sickness and disease based,
they have to wait till their child is sick enough to take to the
emergency room.
I was walking door to door when I first ran for the State legislature
and knocked on the door of a younger woman, it turned out. Usually when
I was knocking door to door, it was senior citizens who took a long
time to get to the door. But this woman, I was surprised when she
answered the door, was young. Her foot was swollen to a grotesque
proportion. I could not help but ask her what happened. She said I
actually had caught her just as she was about to go out the door to the
emergency room because she did not have health insurance and she was
not able to go to the doctor when the problem on her foot was small,
she had to wait till it was so infected that she had to go to the
emergency room. Of course she had no health insurance and she did not
qualify for Medicaid in this instance. So now what we should do is talk
about the gap between people who qualify for Medicaid and people who
have health insurance. There are a vast amount of people in the middle
who fall through the crack.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. That woman probably called off work and there was a
ripple effect.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Loss of productivity by her employer. Just
think about the impact of people who cannot go to work when they are
sick.
{time} 2300
Think about the skyrocketing costs of health care and this
administration. Ask yourself, Madam Speaker, ask yourself the last time
you heard President Bush say anything about health care. I have not
heard him say a word about health care. I have not heard him speak out
against Medicaid cuts. I have not heard him speak in favor of helping
poor children and their families afford health care. Where is the
outrage?
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Let us look at another provision on here that the
Republican Study Committee is also looking to do: Increase the Medicare
Part B premium by $4.6 billion.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That might be a little bit of Washington-
speak. I think people might get the letters confused. What is Medicare
Part B?
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Medicare Part B is the senior citizen program, the
Medicare program that insures our parents and our grandparents. This is
where the Republican Study Committee is going to go to pay for the tax
cuts, to pay for the $16 billion in subsidies that they are giving to
the oil companies, to pay for the subsidies that they are basically
giving to the prescription drugs. They are going to go to our senior
citizens and ask them to give up $4.6 billion in 2006 and $84 billion
over the course of the next 10 years. These are senior citizens that,
as I am sure they are in your district, whose pension is not going up,
if they can even keep their pension. Health care costs obviously are
going up here, the cost of natural gas and gasoline, heating oil, all
of this is affecting how our seniors can actually survive day-to-day;
and our friends on the other side are making another wrong decision by
going after them and asking them to foot the bill.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman recalls a few
months ago when we were talking about Social Security privatization and
the impact that that would have on our seniors, imagine if that
proposal had gone through and, hopefully, we are going to continue to
be able to keep that off the table. But when we were on the floor
during the 30-Something Working Group, my colleagues will recall that
one of the things that we talked about so often was that we have so
many of our senior citizens who are on fixed incomes, whose Social
Security is their only source of survival.
Now, if what the Republican Study Committee would like to see happen
happens, where they increase Medicare Part B premiums, which is out-of-
pocket money that these seniors have to pay, and one day soon we
privatize Social Security, how are these people going to be able to
afford to live?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, let me just say this. I will not
say the Republican Study Committee, I will say the Republican
Conference. I mean, the bottom line is, we would not have the
philosophy of a few come to the floor, pass the Budget Committee, and
possibly a threat for it to come to the floor by the end of the week if
it was not for the help of the Republican Conference.
Now, they are our friends. We are coffee together, we ride the
elevator together, we walk down the hall together, we talk about
raising our children, and all of the things that people do who work
together. We all work together, but we have a difference in philosophy
and priorities. And I will tell my colleagues right now, and I just
want to make sure that Members, if you have a family member that is a
veteran, I want you to go grab them because I am about to say
something. I want to make sure that we understand that these cuts, and
we are talking about 60 million Americans, 60 million that are on
Medicaid right now, enrolled in Medicaid, 60 million Americans, not 60
million Iraqis, not 60 million Somalians, 60 million Americans who pay
their taxes every day, that know what it means to punch in and punch
out at work every day, know what it means to have a 15-minute lunch
break, or a break in the morning if they get it, 15 minutes in the
afternoon, and a 30-minute lunch break, if they get it. These are the
people that we are talking about. Also, children are enrolled in this,
too. So it is very, very important.
I am looking here at the Families USA, which is a voice for health
care consumers. I mean, basically they are saying these cuts, this
proposal, will force low-income people to pay, like you said, higher
premiums that they cannot afford, and copayments. So let us just call
it what it is.
It looks good when you look at the numbers and, oh, these are the
cuts that we are making, but let us translate what those cuts mean. It
means that for the premiums and copayments that people are making under
the Medicaid plan now, which is not the greatest, because this
Republican Congress has increased it time after time, now we are about
to do it again. They are not going to be able to afford health care. So
we might as well say that we do not have it.
We have companies now that are telling people to go and enroll in
Medicaid, because they we do not have a national health care plan. They
cannot participate in that program. So when folks start talking about
weaning people off, let us talk about this. I have also said, we talk
about the difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Now, here is one for the veterans that allowed us to be here under
the lights in this Chamber, fought for this country, still fighting for
this country, and also I want to call special attention to our Members
who come to the floor and give great floor speeches about how we love
the troops. Well, I have not seen a Member come to the floor yet and
say, hey, listen, I do not like the troops. So to say that I care about
the troops, we all care about the troops. We all want to make sure the
troops are okay. But what happens when they come home? What happens?
What happens when, after the parade, what happens? What happens after
they turn their uniform in? What happens to those individuals? Let me
tell you what is going to happen under this budget.
The bottom line is that the Republican budget cuts that are being
made in health care are $14 million below current service over the next
5 years.
Now, I am going to tell my colleagues something. Maybe I represent
too many veterans. Maybe I have heard too many stories about when
someone who wants to see an ophthalmologist or a podiatrist or some
sort of specialty at the VA, and they have to wait 6 months for an
appointment, 6 months for an appointment, and in rural areas
[[Page H9957]]
it is even worse. There are areas where they have VA facilities and
clinics that are only open once or twice a month.
And under this budget, with a straight face, they are going to come
to the floor, and that is the reason why periodical after periodical is
saying that it is hard for the Republican Conference to even vote for
their own budget. Now, folks come to the floor, well, we want our
friends on the Democratic side, if they could support us; yes, we want
to balance the budget, but we do not want the veterans who have been
waiting 6 months now to have to wait a year, because the majority side
has made a 5-year cut of $14 billion. That is not chicken feed; that is
a lot of money.
And then it goes further. Because facts hurt, facts hurt. Reality
hurts.
We are here to make sure that we give voice to those Americans that
sent us here. Some folks use it very loosely: This is the people's
House. Well, guess what? We believe it. We do not use it as a punch
line. We are here because people have elected us.
Furthermore, it goes on to require the Veterans' Affairs Committee to
make $798 million in additional cuts over the next 5 years. Also it
imposes new fees for veterans for health care by reducing veterans'
benefits such as disability payments, pension benefits, and educational
benefits.
Now, let me tell my colleagues something. Like we say sometimes, let
us put the cookie on the bottom shelf. The bottom line is that folks
are sugar-coating a number. We are making these cuts and we have to do
this. One says we have to do it on behalf of the Katrina Commission.
Another person says, well, we want the Katrina Commission, but because
of Hurricane Katrina, we have to respond to those individuals. Some
say, well, we have to make sure that we reduce the national debt and
that is the reason we are making these cuts.
And we all know that even in the Senate there is a lot of chest-
beating, because there is a $6 billion tax break, mainly for the top
bracket and mainly for the special interests that they are going to
push through this chamber. Why? Because if there is going to be a tax
cut, there should be a tax cut that is going to help every day
Americans. But how can we with a straight face, when we have veterans
waiting 6 months for basic health care, when we have folks in
devastated areas, with the three natural disasters that we have had,
that cannot even get a housing voucher that were made homeless because
of the natural disaster, when we have a government that is trying to
figure out how we are going to continue to pay for the war in Iraq, how
we are going to be able to pay for incompetence, incompetence in the
government.
{time} 2310
How we are going to continue to condone cronyism, a culture of
cronyism at the same time? The bottom line is, ladies and gentlemen, I
believe the majority side really needs to have a meeting. They need to
have a meeting and talk about the true priorities of America. And then,
one of those points in that meeting should be, you know, we really need
to move in a bipartisan way. Oh, wow. That is a great idea. Hey, let us
work with the Democrats and Republicans and let us save the country.
Now, I am coming in for a landing now. I am going to tell you
something. People are saying, why are you all on the floor every night?
Why? Why are you on the floor every night? Some people are saying it is
a great thing, Democrats and Republicans. We are glad the people are
breaking this thing down so that we can all understand, because we can
use CBO and all the acronyms and folks can come to the floor and say we
want to make America stronger. What I am describing here is making a
country weaker, not because of the country and the people that live in
it, but the leadership that is supposed to govern it on behalf of
making this country stronger.
These are the facts. Third-party validators, these are the facts,
like it or not. One other fact, and Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I am getting
ready to yield to you, I am going to take this chart out. You know, if
I could, Mr. Ryan, I would put this chart on the front of my truck so
that people can see it. If I had the resources, I would get a billboard
so that people understand what is going on. This is not a woof speech.
This is a reality speech. The bottom line is that the majority that is
in control now, need it be the House or Senate or need it be the White
House, the policies that they are putting forth are not helping and
strengthening our country. Period. Dot.
I do not want to make it seem like it is some sort of extreme
statement. It is not an extreme statement. What I just described was
happening to veterans. The last 15 minutes we talked about what is
happening to Medicaid, and Medicare is on the table, Mr. Delahunt. The
bottom line is 42 Presidents, 1776, we were not even thought of, you
know, as Members in this House here. To the year 2000, 42 Presidents,
$1.01 trillion that we borrowed from foreign nations. President Bush,
not by himself, with the Republican majority, not by himself, I just
want to make sure that everyone understands that the President does not
have the ability to do this all by himself. Trust me. 1.05 trillion
from foreign nations, Mr. Ryan, including China.
And so I think it is important that people understand. This is not
Democratic talk. This is not Independent talk. This is not even
Republican talk. This is reality. And unless we rise up, I just want to
make sure that we let the Members know we know exactly, on a majority
side you can have a study group. You can have a caucus within the
caucus. You can have subcommittees. The bottom line is the policy will
never see the light of day if it was not for the Republican majority
here in this House pushing it to the floor.
And that is the reason why, that is the reason why you have
Republican conference members that have big problems. They are, you
know, they are even looking at their calendar saying, well, goodness it
is my son's birthday on Saturday. Maybe I can tell leadership we are
going to celebrate it on Thursday because I do not want to be here for
this vote because how can I explain back home how we are increasing the
wait list for veterans, how we are cutting benefits for your children
to go to college, and we are going to put the responsibility on your
back to take up the slack because we want to give tax cuts to special
interests to billionaires.
I mean, that is a hard thing to explain, especially when you are by
yourself back in your district and you are not hiding behind the press
release from the majority office of this House of Representatives. And
that is the fact, Jack. And the bottom line is we are going to man up
and woman up and leader up and say no. And that is the reason why it
has not been to the floor, and I hope that is the reason why it will
not come to the floor in its present form and that we go into, if we
had rule XXI, which we do have rule XXI here in the House, but if we
had a rule XXI like the Senate, we should go into closed session. Folks
grab the mike, the leadership, and the bottom line is work out a plan
that we can all work together, take from the Democratic budget, the
Republican budget and do what Americans want us to do. They do not want
us here talking about one another back and forth. But the bottom line
is that is the road map that has been laid out by the majority. Ms.
Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. And you know it is totally
understandable why you are emotional about it and why we are all
emotional about it. We are all bristling with indignation here because
to add insult to injury, the nightmare scenario you are describing for
veterans if this budget reconciliation bill actually becomes a reality
is just the tip of iceberg. Just a few months ago, I mean, I am a
freshman. I just got here. And there are a lot of things that have
shocked me, not the least of which is what you referred to a little
while ago which is that we almost never meet in a bipartisan fashion.
The idea of actually seeing Members from the other side of the aisle
sit down at a meeting like you just described, at the beginning of this
year, you know, to me would have been a usual matter, like we did in
the legislature, coming together on most things and arguing about only
the most basic of Republican and Democratic differences.
Here it is like they think we do not take showers or something. I am
not
[[Page H9958]]
really certain why it is that they will not actually sit down with us
and try to work things out. But what was more startling just a couple
of months later was that, you know, we have talked about the number of
Cs that apply to their ability to govern. There is corruption, there is
the cronyism, and then there is the lack of competence. I mean, I could
not believe that in June we had to actually appropriate $1.5 billion
for the Department of Veterans Affairs because there was a shortfall in
their budget that they were denying for months. Months. We kept
insisting there was a shortfall. Veterans were having to wait months
and months for health care. The 6-month wait for access to health care
at the VA was a true reality.
And we were saying there is something wrong here. The American Legion
was saying something was wrong here. And finally they owned up and
realized oh, yeah, we do have a shortfall and we are going to need, we
had to go and pass an emergency appropriations bill to get them the
rest of the money they need.
You know, we talk about the third-party validators here. Now there is
a proposal to cut $600 million out of this budget in veterans health
care, which would be enough funds to care for nearly 100,000 veterans.
The American Legion, this is this evening's third-party validator for
me on veterans, expressed concern that that cut would mean rationing of
care, hiring freezes of medical personnel, delaying repairs on
facilities, growing backlogs of medical equipment, and many other
fiscal-based constraints. And that was a letter that they wrote on
October 17.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, would you just yield for
a second.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes, I would be happy to.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. What holiday is coming up?
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I think that would be Veterans Day, and that
is Friday.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. And it is very interesting because Members are
going to be trying to run out of here and catch planes and falling over
each other to go march in a parade with those that have laid down,
literally put their lives on the line, lost limbs. Some will be pushed
in wheelchairs. Some will be remembering the fallen members of our
country that went and fought in all of the past conflicts. And just
before Friday, there is a vote scheduled to set them back and what we
told them we would do for them and provide them for health care. I
yield back. I just wanted to talk about the gall of this whole thing at
this particular time.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Gall is a soft word, the softest word you
could use. I really want to go ahead and transition to Mr. Delahunt,
who is going to go through some more of this.
Mr. DELAHUNT. No, I want to commend all of you for your eloquence,
your commitment. I think you ought to describe, you know, how this
particular group was formed. I know I really speak for the other
members of the Democratic Caucus when I say that we are very proud of
your commitment, your hard work, and your dedication to the American
people, because you are 30-something. You are all under 40. But it is
really impressive. And I have to tell you that in many ways you are
leaders now, but I am confident that you represent the future; and as
more and more people listen to you, particularly people of your
generation, they are going to think about these issues in a more
serious way. They are going to educate themselves, because you are
presenting reality.
You know, I would describe what the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek)
said is that tragically there is a great difference between walking the
walk and talking the talk. It is great to talk about patriotism. You
are right. There is going to be a lot of speeches on November 11, and
terms and phrases such as a ``debt of gratitude'' to our veterans, to
the men and women that have served this country and are currently
serving our country now, whether it be Iraq, Afghanistan or in the
multiple deployments of our armed services.
{time} 2320
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is so right. The reality is
that when they come home, will they have good quality health care
available to them? Will they have access to the kind of care that they
deserve? Will they receive the benefits that the generations that
served in World War II, that served in the Korean War, in Vietnam have?
And the gentleman is right. There just simply are not the resources
there. We can paper it over by passing supplementary or emergency
budgets just to get through a difficult time. But I would suggest to
our veterans to listen to their leadership and what they have said
about the budget proposals on veterans' health care that have been put
forth time and time and time again by the Republican Party in this
House. We all see letters describing them in various terms.
Now, I am speaking of the American Legion, the VFW, the Disabled
Veterans of America, the Paralyzed Veterans of America. The word that
comes to my mind is a disgrace, a shame, and a dishonor to the
veterans.
The gentleman speaks about third party validators to corroborate the
facts as we are presenting them. Do not listen to us. Go to the
leadership of these veterans service organizations if you are a veteran
and ask. Unfortunately, what we are saying is truthful and accurate,
and I would suggest that while we might be talking the talk, what
reveals our real character is the commitment that we make. We can go
and speak to the troops and tell them that we care, but we all have to
make some sacrifice.
We have an all-volunteer Army and we are comfortable here. And most
people in this country, because of the policies of this government, are
not involved in the sacrifices that are currently being made by our
military personnel all over the world. We owe it to them. It is just
not policy. It is a moral obligation.
We speak of values. And I daresay that when we turn our backs by our
actions on our veterans that we are not living up to the values and the
moral authority that we proclaim again and again. We are indulging in
hypocrisy, and that is all too sad.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, one of the decisions that is being
made down here as we cut the vets' budget, there is a chart that
explains where some of the tax cuts are going and you will see of all
the tax cuts down here, $34,000 to $54,000, $840. And people who make
$440,000 a year and up, $87,600.
Now, to put this into ``middle America speak,'' the Democrats are for
reducing a small little portion of this, not even the whole thing, but
asking these people who make a million dollars a year or more to just
give up a wee little bit of that up there, just a small little tiny
part of that so that we can fund some of these other priorities that we
have agreed as a country are important, like making sure our veterans
have the proper amount of health care.
And if, as a country, the leadership in this Chamber and the
leadership in the White House, especially in the executive branch, if
they do not have the guts to ask this person who makes a half a million
dollars a year to give up just a small amount, a few thousand dollars
of their tax cut to pay for veterans health care or to pay for
Medicare, if the President of the United States cannot find it in his
Constitution to ask this person, then I believe he is failing his
responsibility and his oath of office. And I really believe that
because that is about leadership.
To go to the person who does not have a lobby group on K Street to
come over here and lobby us, okay, that is a major problem. And at the
same time as these tax cuts are going on, we are cutting student loans,
we are increasing the burden on our kids who go to college. And if the
Republican majority--as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt)
pointed out, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) is a
freshmen. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) and I are in our second
term. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) has been here
four or five terms. He is on his fifth term, I believe. If the
Republican majority thinks that we are going to sit up in our office or
if we are going to go home and lie on our couch and turn on C-SPAN and
just watch this happen, they have got another think coming.
We are going to come to the floor every night if we can and we are
going to grab every hour that we possibly can
[[Page H9959]]
because there are 700,000 people in northeast Ohio that count on me to
come down here and talk about this stuff, because they are on the other
end of this stick. Fifty percent of the people in my district did not
even get a tax cut. They did not get any of this stuff, none of it.
Fifty percent of the taxpayers in my district did not get any of this
stuff. And if this administration and the leadership in this House does
not think that we are going to come to the floor and talk about this
inequity, about them cutting Medicaid services, which in the long term
costs these taxpayers even more money, if they think we are going to
sit by while tuition goes up 57 percent over the last 5 years and not
say anything, they have got another think coming.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, those are the same constituents and
my constituents that are going to get hit by the Medicaid cuts, the
same veterans that will be paying more on their copayments, waiting
longer for their services. Those are the same individuals that the
gentleman is describing. And the gentleman is 110 percent right, and I
am glad that he is warning the majority that this stuff is not going to
be quiet.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We are not going away. We will be here every night
if we have to.
The problem is, and here is the problem that hurts me the most, is
that the people who make a half a million dollars, a million dollars a
year, they make it because of the benefits that have been given to them
and the opportunity that has been given to them by our veterans, to be
able to take advantage of a capitalistic system, to be able to take
advantage of a democratic system with a strong military to make sure
that you can make solid business investment and make money.
Bill Gates did not invent the Internet. It was the public tax dollars
that went to do the research. Bill Gates capitalized on the Internet.
So he has a responsibility to keep the system going for the next guy,
but to do this and to not have the guts to pay for these people, to pay
for veterans' health care benefits.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) was
referring to the guts that they lack. It has been clear to me, and
increasingly clear as the months go by, that they do not have the guts
or the ability in their constitutional makeup, like the gentleman said,
continuing with the C-word theme, it is their culture of cronyism that
does not allow them. Their culture that propels them to take care of
the people at the top and only those at the top.
{time} 2330
So they do not have the ability to comprehend at least not the way I
perceive it, that they are doing the wrong thing.
The culture of corruption and cronyism just continues, and although
it is somewhat off topic, I think it is important because the last few
times we have been here we have been talking about just their general
lack of ethics and their commitment to taking care of their cronies as
opposed to the American people.
We have been calling on the floor of this House for the President to
fire Karl Rove, to at least ask him to step down, to eliminate the
weight that is standing on his chest and the chests of the American
people and our ability to actually move forward.
Do you know what his response was to calls across the country to get
rid of Karl Rove? He ordered his staff in the White House to take an
ethics course this week. That is what he has asked them to do. Right
there in black and white, the Associated Press reported it. His
response to this entire mess is that his White House staff should take
an ethics class.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Hello, ethics course? Hello. No. Like I told you
once before, I do not blame the special interests for getting what they
get because they do not get it unless the Republican majority gives it
to them, because they are in the majority. Many of the unexplainable
events that have taken place here on this floor and in committee, the
mind boggling, how can that pass, how could they get all of this money,
all this taxpayer money from the Congress? They do not do it. The vote
has to go up on the board for them to allow them to do it.
I will say the same thing as it relates to the President, not a
mumbling word from this House on outing a CIA agent. All of the
speeches that were given here in this well right before me, give us the
responsibility of national security, we are tough, we will make sure
that we have what we need to have and we will fight the war on terror.
And guess what? Someone in the White House, two people in the White
House, probably even more, out a CIA agent, a CIA agent that did what?
Went out to make sure that we were able to head off countries from
getting weapons of mass destruction.
This is not a small issue. For far less, far less, the House of
Representatives have called out Travelgate, Whitewater, all these kind
of individual decisions that were made and had some possible ethic
issues going along with it, but not the outing of a CIA agent, not
saying, hey, you know something, she is a CIA agent and there are a
number of people that are working with her, and we want you to know
about it. Not a mumbling word out of this House, not one floor speech
calling for resignations, not one committee cranking up a committee
meeting and calling people from the White House down here before the
people's House to question how could this happen, not one. Not one.
Guess what. If the Democrats were in the majority, I would tell you
right now Democrat House, Republican White House, there will be
hearings, and not a mumbling word, just crickets on that side of the
aisle as it relates to outing a CIA agent.
So what you are saying is not alarming. The President is doing that
because he is allowed to do it because the investigative body here in
the House that has the responsibility of keeping this government in
check is not doing its job.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Can I just tell you, it gets worse. It is not
just the fact that they are responding to this entire fiasco, ethical
conflict, with ethics classes for the White House staff. Do you know
who is giving the classes? The White House counsel's office, Harriet
Miers' office. That is part of their pattern. It is not like they
decided they should go somewhere outside the White House, because
clearly the White House has not been emblematic of an ethical place
where you could actually learn ethics from someone inside the White
House. You would think they would have gone outside the White House,
but they do not believe in independence.
We asked them to establish an independent Katrina commission. No.
Their answer was to do it internally and create a special committee
here that is lopsided, 11 Republicans and right now no Democrats
because we refuse to serve on a committee that is not going to be fair
and objective and really get to the bottom of it.
The bottom line, the reason I brought this up is because your point
is from the top to the bottom, the culture of corruption and cronyism
and incompetence just runs right through. There is not any light at the
end of the tunnel, and it gets worse with every page you turn in this
administration.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, can we just say, if you have worked
in the White House for 5 years and you are the chief of staff of the
Vice President, indicted on five counts of lying and obstruction of
justice, and you have the deputy chief of staff of the President of the
United States lie to the American people on two occasions, you have the
Vice President of the United States mislead on several occasions Tim
Russert and the American people, you do not need ethics courses. You
need to be fired. Okay. This is not brain surgery. This is probably a
basic management technique. If you lie to the American people and you
work at the White House, you should be fired, and there should be no
place for you in representing the public.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. National security. National security. It is not
lying about, well, you know, I flew to Chicago and I really did not
have Federal business and I am sorry, the ticket was $450; I need to go
to an ethics course. You do need to go to an ethics course.
You out a CIA agent; it goes far beyond a firing. This is not an
everyday occurrence. Maybe I am just too concerned about the security
of this country. Maybe I am just too concerned about it, and I do not
think I am out of
[[Page H9960]]
step by being alarmed by this because I can tell you right now there
are some Members on that side that are alarmed about it, but they are
not saying anything. Definitely the leadership is not saying anything,
and the White House would do what it is allowed to do.
If it is allowed to borrow $1.05 trillion from foreign countries, it
will do it. If it is allowed to have our veterans waiting in longer
lines to cut their benefits and have them pay higher co-pays and
Medicare individuals and free and reduced lunches cut in half, they
will do it. It is up to this House to rise up, and the majority's just
not doing it. We can only do it for so much as it relates to bringing
this back into check.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, I would just make another observation.
Again, we hear much in terms of our public discourse about values and
about responsibility towards our fellow citizens, and yet, I was really
struck by a headline that appeared in USA Today last week. The headline
was ``Louisiana Cannot Pay Katrina and Rita Bills.''
The Federal Government is requiring the State of Louisiana to come up
with almost $4 billion as its share for relief from the devastation of
those two hurricanes. They have no tax base left practically. New
Orleans we know has been devastated. The entire annual budget for the
State of Louisiana is $8 billion. It is as if we are turning our back
on other Americans, and yet we are giving away billions of dollars
without any strings attached, with no matching fund requirements when
it comes to Iraq.
Madam Speaker, we are paying for roads in Iraq. We are paying for
affordable housing in Iraq. We are paying for dams and levees in Iraq.
The American taxpayer will not see a dime in return, and yet, when it
comes to our fellow citizens, we are saying if you want that share,
come up with $4 billion that they do not have.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, we are winding down here. There
is one statement, and then we are going to close because we have a
minute.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Just one quick statement. We want to remind
everyone that tomorrow is election day in many places, Virginia,
California, New York, New Jersey. We want to urge our generation to
come out in the record numbers that they came out during the 2004
elections.
{time} 2340
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Just a reminder to send us e-mails at
[email protected], any articles or whatever, Madam
Speaker, from our colleagues here so that we can talk about them on
air. That is [email protected].
Mr. MEEK of Florida. With that, we want to thank the Democratic
leadership for this block of time, and I yield back the balance of our
time.
____________________