[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].

                          ____________________