[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 18]
[House]
[Pages 25279-25285]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 25280]]

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 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

[[Page 25281]]

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 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

[[Page 25282]]

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 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

[[Page 25283]]

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 because there are 700,000 
people in northeast Ohio that count on me to come down here and talk 
about this

[[Page 25284]]

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

[[Page 25285]]

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 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.

                          ____________________