[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 78 (Thursday, June 2, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H3980-H3983]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE PEOPLE'S HOUSE
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Richmond) is
recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me and
presiding over these affairs tonight.
I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Altmire).
Mr. ALTMIRE. I appreciate the gentleman from Louisiana yielding his
time as he prepares his remarks, which I look forward to hearing.
Earlier this afternoon and into the evening, this House considered an
appropriations bill related to Veterans Affairs and Military
Construction. At that point I asked my colleagues to support an
amendment that I offered for the FY 2012 Military Construction-Veterans
Affairs appropriations bill, and that amendment I am thankful to say
was accepted. It was bipartisan acceptance. Both the majority and
minority agreed it should be added to the bill, and I just wanted to
tell the gentleman and my colleagues that amendment is very
straightforward. It moves $22 million from the VA general
administration to solve a dramatic cut in medical and prosthetic
research.
This bill that we are talking about, the VA-Military Construction
account, as it was written, funds medical and prosthetic research at
$509 million in FY 2012, but that is a $72 million cut over last year.
But the amendment that I offered restores funding to an account that
directly impacts treatment of amputees and other wounded veterans.
Like all of my colleagues, I want to do everything I possibly can to
support our veterans and to promote these programs. And like many of
us, I have visited the facilities for amputees at Walter Reed Army
Medical Center right here in Washington, DC, and I have spoken with
those disabled wounded warriors who have lost limbs in the line of
duty.
Through technological and medical improvements at that facility, the
DOD has demonstrated its ability to improve world-class health care to
amputees and other wounded servicemembers. The VA must have the funding
necessary to carry on that mission after veterans leave the service.
Just last week, the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs held a
hearing entitled: ``Seamless Transition--Meeting the Needs of
Servicemembers and Veterans.'' During the hearing, multiple wounded
warriors testified about the difficulty of transferring between DOD and
VA care.
In particular, one witness, Lance Corporal Tim Horton from Oklahoma,
highlighted the disparity between health care he received as he sought
out prosthetics that help him go about his everyday life.
Lance Corporal Horton said: ``I know other veterans who live in close
proximity to Walter Reed who are able to walk in and out with the
services and equipment they need within the same day, all without ever
needing to go through their local VA. While waiting weeks for an
appointment might seem like a minor inconvenience, for a warrior like
myself, spending weeks without necessary prosthetics equipment, or
sometimes even worse, equipment that causes extreme discomfort and
other medical issues, can be wholly disruptive to our daily lives. The
timeliness and consistency of care should not be a function of where
warriors happen to live.''
I have spoken with amputees with similar stories from my district in
western Pennsylvania who have expressed their dissatisfaction with the
medical care they receive after retiring from the military. I am sure
all of my colleagues would agree, we can never repay America's veterans
for the sacrifice that they have made for our country. What amount of
money could replace an arm or a leg lost in the line of duty?
I firmly believe, as I am sure we all believe, that we need to get
our fiscal house in order, but in this extreme time of fiscal restraint
and prioritization of appropriations, I believe that no one should
stand ahead of our Nation's veterans when making these difficult
funding decisions. I believe that medical and prosthetic research is a
higher priority than bureaucratic administration.
CBO has scored my amendment as having no impact on budget authority,
and it would actually reduce FY 2012 outlays by $5 million.
This amendment helps direct the priorities of the VA towards the
veterans that deserve its funding and support, and I want to thank the
American Legion for its support in helping craft this amendment because
it is good for veterans, and I am so happy that my colleagues have
agreed to accept this amendment as part of the bill. Hopefully, it will
survive in the Senate and become law.
I greatly appreciate the gentleman from Louisiana yielding me some
time to allow me to discuss this.
Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman so much.
Several weeks ago I had the opportunity to come down to the floor of
the House and start something that I think is very significant. Mr.
Speaker, I can't directly can't talk to the American people. I have to
address you. But if I could talk to the American people, I would remind
them that a couple of weeks ago, when I came down here, I was inviting
them to participate in what I am now calling ``The People's House'' so
that ordinary people can have a say in what we do and make sure that
their opinions are heard. So again, I would invite anyone and everyone
to join me in this conversation to make sure that everyday people have
a voice and have a way to contact me. So, again, you can reach me at
[email protected] or you can find me on Facebook or you can find me
on Twitter.
What I want to remind everyone of is the fact that it is very clear
that many of us know a lot of things, but the most important thing we
need to know is that we don't know it all. That is why I am soliciting,
Mr. Speaker, the help of the American people, so they can give us their
ideas.
When I started this the last time, I was asking them to send me their
ideas on ways to cut spending and ways to save money. I also was asking
for ideas on how to raise some revenue, how to make this country the
great country that it used to be.
Well, the good thing, Mr. Speaker, is that we had people who took me
up on this idea and to say that they thought that this was a good idea
and they wanted to participate. They wanted to make sure that people
heard their voice. They sent me a number of ideas, and we are going to
talk about some of those ideas and those comments today.
So my goal here is to again have and initiate a conversation with the
American people, because this is truly ``The People's House.'' The
United States House of Representatives, you cannot be appointed to it.
You have to be
[[Page H3981]]
elected. And the history behind it is because we are the closest to the
American people. So now, in this day of new technology and all of the
outlets and social media that we have in order to strike up
conversations in different ways, we should do that. This is not the day
when the only thing we have is the United States Postal Service or
slower means of communication.
{time} 2040
Today, we can communicate in seconds if not nanoseconds. So I want to
make sure that we use all of this new medium in order to expand this
conversation to everyone who is concerned. These are some of the people
who responded last week and some of the people whose ideas we will talk
about. Mr. Speaker, I was very happy to get such a large response, and
these are some of the people I wanted to point out.
We had Sheila Baker who responded; Robert Becker from New Orleans,
who also responded; Mary Anne Lawrence Cazaubon responded several times
through several different media outlets, and had some very interesting
things to say, as well as Micah Hill, Barbara Olinger from Folsom, and
Freddy Vazquez, Jr. Then, through Facebook, we had Adam Haney, Anthony
Sadler from Tennessee, Phil Schlittler, and Deloris Wilson, all of whom
participated and gave me some of their thoughts about what they thought
should be going on.
I want to make sure that at least the people back in the Second
Congressional District of Louisiana understand that they are more than
welcome to participate in this conversation but that this conversation
is open to the American people. There is no monopoly on good ideas.
Although I respect and value the opinions of the people from Louisiana
in the Second Congressional District, we want to hear from everybody.
So let's just start talking about some of the ideas. I will tell you
before I start that I may or may not agree with all of the ideas, and
some of my colleagues from the Republican side or the Democratic side
may or may not agree.
The one thing I think both sides will agree on is that this is
America and that this is what makes America the great place that it is.
This is the place where we can provide kids with a free quality public
education, which will prepare them for the future. This is the place
where we strive to get the sick the health care that they need even if
they can't afford it. This is the great country where we take care of
our seniors and our disabled with Medicare, Medicaid and Social
Security. This is the country where we care for our fellow man and
strive to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and shelter the homeless.
Tonight, I am sharing recommendations on how we as Americans get back
to that great place of humanity, of sacrifice and of prosperity.
Now, Micah Hill's comments were very, very interesting. Micah's
frustration was the fact that Congress should address underachievement
in our grade schools. He wanted us to address that underachievement by
holding parents accountable for their children's performance. I'll give
you an excerpt from his letter.
Micah's response was: Children who are not doing well in their
studies are children who are constantly in trouble. Their parents
should be investigated. The students' homes should be investigated to
see if the parents are abusing substances or anything else. If young
students, like those in grade school and freshmen in high school, are
having problems, then the parents should be investigated. That will
help educate our children who are not getting their educational needs
met because of their home fronts. Find out the child's educational
strengths, and find out what is lacking in the home.
Now, Micah, that is a very creative idea, and I think that that
conversation has started numerous times back in my State legislature.
It is a conversation that we should be having at the Federal level
because, when we talk about our children's success, when we talk about
their education, the one thing that everyone agrees on is the fact that
parental responsibility and parental involvement is the single biggest
indicator of that child's success. So, as government, if we can help to
do anything to make sure that that home life is safe and secure and
that that child can succeed, then we absolutely should do it, and I
look forward to continuing that conversation with you.
I will now touch for a second on Mary Anne Lawrence Cazaubon, who, by
the way, is 72, and is a retired teacher. Before her teaching career,
she worked more than the required quarters in order to draw Social
Security. Between the two lives that she lived and the two jobs that
she worked, she now lives on less than $1,150 per month. If there were
a flat tax of only 10 percent, it would cost her, roughly, $115 per
month. She says, even though she would have to spend every dime of her
check every month, she would just have to do that. She also mentions,
some months, she has to go without food, but she always makes sure that
she gets her medicine for her heart and her osteoporosis.
That's the type of sacrifice, that's the type of predicament a lot of
our families are in.
Ms. Mary Anne went further as she talked about tax and fiscal issues,
and she was very clear to write this, a statement that I absolutely
agree with: Congressman, I hope you appreciate the fact that many of
your constituents do support limited government and fiscal sanity. Our
country is in real danger of economic collapse. Please don't just toe
the party line and reject solutions to this crucial issue. Our Nation's
fate depends on it.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I think Ms. Mary Anne is absolutely
right. I think that everyone in the country is calling for limited
government and fiscal sanity. Also, I think that we have to recognize
at the same time that as we cut and make very prudent decisions to
restore our fiscal sanity that we have to invest in this next
generation, that we have to invest in the future, that we have to
invest in those things that spur our entrepreneurial spirit and our
innovation, and in those things that are going to continue to make sure
that we are the leader in every industry and in every category that we
used to be the leader in.
After Ms. Mary Anne talked about the limited government and fiscal
sanity, she also volunteered that she would like to see an indexed
income tax without any exceptions for individuals or families and no
incentives or exemptions to any industry or company, large or small.
Here is the recommendation that Ms. Mary Anne came up with:
She would recommend a 0 percent tax for anyone with an income of less
than $20,000, 5 percent for anyone with income from $20,000 to $40,000,
10 percent for any of those from $40,000 to $60,000, 15 percent for
those from $60,000 to $80,000, 20 percent for those from $80,000 to
$100,000, 25 percent for those from $100,000 to $150,000, 30 percent
for those from $150,000 to $200,000, and 35 percent for all incomes
over $200,000.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that this is very interesting because we're
talking about a 72-year-old lady who survives on $1,150 per month, and
she has taken the time not only to watch C-SPAN but to join in the
conversation with me and the people's House to say that she understands
that people who make more should pay a little bit more.
On that note, I'll go to Sheila Baker, whose quote, I think, is
directly applicable to what Ms. Mary Anne was saying. Ms. Baker says: I
pay my taxes responsibly with the understanding that I must pay more
than those who earn an income less than mine.
Ms. Baker is clearly saying that she makes a little bit, and she
understands that she pays more than the person who does not make what
she makes and who is not as fortunate as she is; but her next sentence
is the most important one. She says she also expects and demands that
those who earn more than she should do the same and that those who make
more than Ms. Baker should also pay their fair share, hence the concept
of a fair shared burden of taxes.
So I want to thank Ms. Baker, one, for acknowledging that she is
doing better than other people and that she has to pay a little bit
more, and I want to thank her for participating in the people's House
and in expressing her concerns and her opinions about where she thinks
we should be as a country.
{time} 2050
The next person I want to talk about, Mr. Speaker, is Freddy Vazquez,
Jr. He has concerns about our spending; he
[[Page H3982]]
has concerns about foreign aid; and he has concerns about the war that
we are fighting. And he writes, ``We spend billions on helping others,
and that's fine when we have the means. Libya, Pakistan, Iraq and
Afghanistan, they take our money, then they stab us in the back.
America can and will go bankrupt. Our government is acting like a
teenager who just received a credit card.'' He then goes on to quote
2pac, where 2pac said, ``They got the money for war, but they can't
feed the poor.'' And he closes with, ``That's not right--that's not
America.''
And I would just say that the frustration that Mr. Vazquez is
expressing here is a frustration that we're hearing all across the
country, the fact that we're fighting so many wars on foreign soil, the
fact that our humanity goes far out immediately. People are wondering,
does humanity start at home? Do we have obligations to take care of on
the home front before we go across the globe doing the same? Mr.
Speaker, I would just chime in here and add my personal opinion that
we're America, we can do both; we can provide here at home, and we can
continue to be the world leader, spreading democracy around this world
to make sure that the world is just as great as the free country that
we live in.
Now, what is it going to take to do that? It's going to take a shared
sacrifice. In the last People's House we talked about, American people,
give what you can give--if you're a high school student, mentor an
elementary kid; if you're a college student, help out at a senior
citizens home; if you're a millionaire, then contribute to a charity.
What makes America great is the fact that we are willing to give what
we have to give. So I would just implore everyone, Mr. Speaker, to give
what it is you have the ability to give because that's what made this
country what it is today and allowed us to achieve what we were able to
achieve.
Mr. Speaker, I would also add that Anthony Sadler wrote in to say
that he believes we should buy more products from local businesses,
especially minority businesses. Anthony, I just want you to know that
down here today I don't have our minority whip, Mr. Steny Hoyer, but I
will tell you that you and Steny Hoyer are a match made in heaven.
Steny and our Democratic Caucus are pushing what we call ``Make It in
America.'' And if Steny was down here today, he would go on and on and
really get excited about the fact that we will make it in America.
That's what we do--we make it in everything we do.
Another part of that Make It in America, we need to make more
products in America. That's what we do--we manufacture things, we build
things, we have the best innovation, but we need to make sure that we
have a focus, a commitment, and an investment in the American people so
that they can make it here in America. So that goes right with what
you're saying, Mr. Sadler. Because as Steny will push that we make it
in America, you're pushing that we buy American products, and those two
things go hand in hand. So Mr. Sadler, I just want to thank you for
chiming in. And I'm sure that my minority whip, Steny Hoyer, is
somewhere right now very appreciative of the fact that you also
recognize the importance of making it in America.
Now we have Ms. Deloris Wilson and Phil Schlittler, who posted on my
Facebook. And both of them didn't post very long messages, they both
posted the same thing at different times, and they simply said that
they agree with the President's rationale not to release the pictures
of Osama bin Laden's body. And I just want to say to Ms. Wilson and to
Phil that I agree with both of you. I think the President made the
right decision. But it's very comforting to know that we have citizens
like you all that are at home, paying attention, and simply are not
voicing an opinion to get attention, but simply a heartfelt belief. And
it just so happens that I agree with your opinion. But even when we
don't agree, I want to hear from you. I want to make sure that we keep
this conversation going.
Now, the next person is Adam Haney, who I did not know before the
first time I did the People's House, but he was watching and this is
what he wrote, ``Saw you on C-SPAN, good job. Those maniacal
Republicans want to kill my hopes for class mobility. Save the safety
nets Republicans used to get into Congress for those of us who want to
benefit from those same programs that they did.'' And I would just add,
Adam, that there are a bunch of programs out there, and those programs
are what make this country great. And I don't have to talk about the
obvious--Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare--we can talk about Head
Start, that gives our toddlers the ability to start school and give
them a head start on their future.
As a country, we invest in things. We should look at what return do
we get on our dollar. When we invest in early childhood education, we
get a 9-1 return. For every dollar that we invest in that child, we get
$9 back. Those are the types of programs that Adam is referring to when
he said that the majority would prefer to cut all of those programs now
that they have received it and they've been the beneficiary of it.
Also, we can go back to free and reduced lunch in our public schools.
We can talk about public school education, period, the fact that many
of us that are lucky enough and honored enough to be Members of the
United States Congress in this 112th Congress came from public schools
with public school teachers funded by the American people. We should
hold that very high, the privilege that we were able to do that, but at
the same time we should recognize that that was a sacrifice by
generations before us to make sure that it was fully funded. We had the
quality teachers that we needed so that we could be prepared, so that
we could prosper and that we could be successful. It would be a sin and
shameful for us not to invest that same energy, same money, same
commitment into our next generation, and I'm afraid that that's the
route that we're taking. So Adam, I just want to say I agree with you
wholeheartedly.
The second to last one is Robert Becker from New Orleans who wrote me
with an idea about Social Security and retirement security. He said,
``We should increase the amount that is deducted from paychecks to pay
into the trust fund and increase the amount employers contribute to the
fund. It is in America's best interest not to have a great portion of
elderly Americans living on the edge of poverty.'' Not only is it in
America's interest, Robert, I will tell you it's the right thing to do.
And at some point we have to remember that while we're here on Earth,
it's for a purpose, and that's to make the world a better place. And
what you're advocating for absolutely is the right thing to do. It
makes this country the special country that it is.
And our last person is Barbara Olinger from Folsom. She is from
Louisiana, not in my district, but she wrote, urging Congress to act on
Social Security and related issues. Specifically, she was requesting
that we as Congress reconsider the Social Security Fairness Act of
2009, which would repeal rules related to the Government Pension Offset
and the Windfall Elimination Provision. She says this reduces her
income during tough times. She wrote, ``Saddest of all is I am a
retired social studies teacher, American history, civics. I am so
distraught. We only ask for what is right and just. If I had not ever
paid a dime, I would not be asking for a dime.'' Well, Ms. Barbara,
you're absolutely right; you paid into it, you should get it, you
shouldn't be penalized. I'm not too big, too arrogant to say sometimes
government gets it wrong, and government has it dead wrong on this
issue, and it's something that we should address. So I want to thank
those people for writing in.
And now I just want to turn for a second to something that is
absolutely the climax of foolishness. See, I have a shipyard in my
district called Avondale Shipyard. It used to be Northrop Grumman, then
Northrop Grumman spun it off, got a $1.5 billion credit for the asset,
and they spun it off to a new company that they made, Huntington
Ingalls Shipyard. Well, Huntington Ingalls, in just the first quarter
this year, made $45 million, but they decided that they're going to
close that shipyard in my district. Now that's almost 5,000 direct
workers that work for Huntington Ingalls, 6,000 indirect jobs. Well,
it's every American company's right to decide when they want to close a
business. They can decide it's just not profitable. They can decide
that the heat in Louisiana and the humidity
[[Page H3983]]
and the mosquitos are too much for them, that they can quit, that
they're going to shut their plant down. That is their right and that's
what we fight for in this country, to give people the right to do what
they want to do. It doesn't mean I have to like it. But government
should not be a coconspirator in that company's quitting on the
American people.
So what I have here today, I have all of these petitions--and they're
not signed by the workers. It would have been far too easy to come in
here with a big box of 5,000 signatures from people who depend on
Huntington Ingalls for a paycheck. This is from businesses in the
community that are saying that it's just not right for Huntington
Ingalls to just abandon the community.
Here's the part that rises to the level of the climax of foolishness.
Now that Huntington Ingalls has decided to close, they have applied for
the Federal Government to reimburse them the cost of closing. So the
Federal Government is contemplating giving Huntington Ingalls $310
million to pay for their cost of ramping down and laying off almost
5,000 people. To me, that just doesn't make good sense. We can take
that $310 million, we can put it in an economic development fund for
any other business that wants to come along and create thousands of
jobs. We can put it in education for those 5,000 employees so that they
can be competitive in another occupation. We can take that $310 million
and pay down the debt. We can take that $310 million and do a number of
things, but I would submit to you that we don't take that $310 million
and reward a company for closing.
I offered that amendment on a bill just a few days ago, and some of
my Republican colleagues supported the idea that we should not reward a
company for quitting on 5,000 employees, and my Democratic colleagues
overwhelmingly supported the same amendment. I would just tell you that
in these tough economic times it is unconscionable to reward a company
for quitting.
For those people who voted against that amendment, I would hate to
have to go back to Montana, Minnesota--somewhere--and say not only did
I have an opportunity to take $310 million and give it to paying down
the debt or doing something productive with it, or even doing something
in my district, I decided to give $310 million to a company that is
going to make $180 million this year. And why are we giving them $310
million? Because they're closing. They're still going to own the
property; they're still going to have the asset; they won't have the
employees.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I just wanted to quickly touch on one thing,
and that is, on the last district workweek, I had the opportunity to go
to the Second Harvest Food Bank of Greater New Orleans. They are
leading the fight in eradicating hunger. Last year, they served 262,800
people, including 82,000 children and 40,000 seniors. I just want
everyone to know that the problem of hunger, homelessness, and all of
those things in our community is real. So as we cut, we need to
remember to invest.
Again, I look forward to continuing this conversation on the next
People's House. And you can email us at [email protected].
____________________