[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 162 (Thursday, December 9, 2010)]
[House]
[Page H8278]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
KEEPING OUR PROMISE TO SERVICEMEMBERS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago when we sat down to turkey
dinner with our families, we certainly had plenty to be thankful for.
Our thoughts, however, were thinking about the men and women of the
Armed Forces, both active duty and retired, who have risked life and
limb for all of us, and these folks, these troops, were in our prayers
of thanks and in our hopes.
But, Mr. Speaker, it is critical that our gratitude to these
courageous Americans be expressed not just with kind thoughts around
the Thanksgiving table or speeches on Veterans Day. We need to show our
thanks with deeds, not words, which is why it was important last week
that the House passed the Physician Payment and Therapy Relief Act,
ensuring that seniors and military families continue to see their
doctors.
But even as we were taking that important step, military health
benefits continue to be endangered, because Defense Secretary Gates is
considering a proposal to increase the amount that military retirees
pay for their health insurance under the TRICARE program.
Let me be clear: I couldn't agree more with Mr. Gates's belief that
the Pentagon is overextended. I share his concern about the ``gusher of
defense spending,'' as he himself refers to it. If we are having a
serious conversation about the bloated DOD budget, then I am all in. In
fact, the Congressional Progressive Caucus has proposed $600 billion in
cuts, much of it from obsolete, overpriced and untested weapons systems
that are doing absolutely nothing to protect America or advance our
national security interests.
But with so much waste, fraud and abuse, why in the world would we
cut the Pentagon budget by taking it out of the hide of the military
families who have already sacrificed so very much? Why should they take
the hit, while DOD has historically shown little spending discipline or
fiscal responsibility, throwing billions upon billions of dollars at
inefficient programs? Instead of targeting affordable health care for
the people who have worn the uniform, how about we start by pulling the
plug on the V-22 Osprey, notoriously over budget and also responsible
for 30 accidental deaths over the years?
Norbert Ryan, Jr., of the Military Officers Association of America,
put it well to The New York Times. He wrote: ``Don't ask the folks who
have done so much for this country, who have been called to act since
9/11, to be first in line to give some more.''
It is indeed true, Mr. Speaker, that military retirees and their
families get a good benefits package. To those who say they should pay
more, I say they have already worked for a higher premium in the form
of their service and sacrifice than any of us can even imagine. The
bottom line is that military retirees have earned the benefits they
receive. They deserve them. We owe it to them. It is a promise we must
keep to them.
But let me take this argument one step further, Mr. Speaker. I have
got a broader solution that attacks the problem two different ways.
First, ending the war in Afghanistan will cut military spending
dramatically, and it will also mean fewer military retirees requiring
fewer health care services, yet another urgent, compelling reason to
bring our troops home.
____________________