[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1969-1975]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           AMERICA'S VETERANS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Boustany). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.


                             General Leave

  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on the subject of my Special Order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I am here with the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Evans), my good friend and colleague, the ranking member 
on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs tonight; and we will be joined by 
some others a little later. But we are here to talk about some of the 
issues facing America's veterans and especially the result of the 
budget on veterans health care.
  I would like to preface my remarks, though, by saying that in this 
Chamber comprised of 435 Members from all across this country, 
Democrats and Republicans, some people from large cities, others from 
small towns, we all have to make decisions in this Chamber. We make 
decisions about what is most important for our constituents and what is 
most important for the American people. So we have to choose among 
priorities. But it is my feeling as a Member of the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs, and I am sure the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Evans) feels the same way, that America's veterans should be given a 
high priority by this Congress.
  Right now we have Americans, most of them young, but many of them in 
their 30s and 40s and even some in their 50s fighting for us in Iraq 
and in Afghanistan, and there are soldiers scattered in other places 
around this Earth. They are putting their lives on the line for us, and 
many have in the past put their lives on the line. They have lost their 
lives, many have, and others have lost their health, lost their limbs, 
lost their peace of mind as a result of their service to this country. 
So I believe that most Americans feel as if this country has an 
obligation, a sacred obligation, a moral obligation to do what is right 
for our veterans.
  We are making choices here in Washington, D.C., and some of the 
choices we are making are choices between providing tax breaks to the 
richest people in this country, while at the same time we are making 
decisions to cut back, to reduce, to limit the health care that is 
available to America's veterans. This is certainly reflected in the 
President's budget.
  But before I talk about the budget, I yield to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Evans), the good ranking member of our committee. The 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) is a strong advocate for veterans, 
and I want yield to him to say a few words before I get into some of 
the specifics regarding the President's budget and veterans health 
care.
  Mr. EVANS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's yielding to me, 
and I thank him for holding this Special Order.
  I was 17 years old when I went into the United States Marine Corps. 
It was the proudest thing I have done in my life, including having this 
job, because it was really an experience in which we gave it all. I did 
not go to Vietnam, but I served as a Marine Corps guard of Naval 
Nuclear Ordnance in Okinawa. And it was a great point in my life. I was 
18 years old when I got sent overseas, and I will never forget what 
those guys coming back home told us one night in a bar, going home from 
Vietnam via Okinawa, that the contributions they made, despite the 
controversy of that war, were ones that we should never have forgotten.
  But not only did we forget Vietnam; we have forgotten the veterans of 
this new war that is going on. And I think it is tragic that we do not 
live up to the consequences of funding the programs that our veterans 
assume will be available to them, and I think that we have got to keep 
it in mind that the young people, minorities, poor white people are the 
same people who fought this war as was waged by those men and women in 
combat in the last war. That is why we need to do all we can to help 
the veterans out.
  But this is not what the budget calls for. The budget call for 
increases in premiums paid for the prescription drug benefit, a benefit 
that has been very helpful to our veterans, particularly in line with 
the rate of increases in the private sector. The hospitalization is a 
big benefit to them, and yet this administration would sink to cut 
those benefits by double the pay for those benefits. So we have got a 
lot to work to do.
  What do we tell the people back home in places like Quincy, Illinois, 
who have a State nursing home run by the State, but pay partial per 
diem each day? What are we going to do with these people who have no 
place else to go and join the ranks of the unemployed? What are we 
going to tell those people who need that prescription drug benefit that 
it is doubling its cost to them? When are we going to talk about the 
educational benefits that rarely get talked about here? And it is a sad 
story because our veterans need help in that way too.
  People that went into the Armed Forces did so out of the highest 
patriotic obligation, and they wanted to do it. That may sound 
ridiculous in light of what happens to so many veterans that they would 
be so strong and proud all these years that they still remain patriots 
today. As a Congressman, I do not know what I am going to tell people 
when I go back home. I am going to go back home and meet these people 
who are affected by this every day. Every day people living in cars, 
living in abandoned parts of the cities. We can do much better than 
this, it seems to me. And that is why I applaud the gentleman for 
yielding to me. I look forward to working with him in the committee. He 
has been a really good member, and I appreciate his time and his 
interest on this issue.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans), our ranking member on the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, not only for serving on the committee 
but for his service to this country and for his continuing service as a 
veteran.
  I think it is time for some straight talk about what is being done 
for veterans. There may be some veterans listening tonight. I hope 
there are. There may be some family members of veterans listening or 
probably just Americans who may not know any veterans, but who are 
concerned that this Nation do the right thing.
  I think a pattern is developing in this country, certainly within 
this Congress. I first noticed it at least a couple of years ago when 
the Veterans Administration put out a gag order. It was a change in 
policy that went out to all of the health care providers at VA 
hospitals and facilities across this country, and it was a dramatic 
change in policy. And this gag order instructed the doctors and nurses 
and social workers who work at our VA facilities to stop proactively 
disseminating information to veterans regarding the services they were 
legally entitled to receive under the laws that had been passed by this 
Congress.
  For example, they were told they could not participate in community 
health fairs. They were told they could not make public service 
announcements urging veterans to take advantage of their legal 
benefits. That troubled me. But matters have gotten worse. Then the VA 
made the decision that they were going to create a brand-new category 
of veterans, call them

[[Page 1970]]

Priority 8's. And they said these veterans are sick, they have 
illnesses, they need medical attention; but their conditions are not 
directly related to their military service, and they are high income.
  Some of these veterans could make as little as $22,000 a year, and 
they were called high income. So the VA said these people cannot 
receive VA health care services now. There are just too many people 
coming in for service. We do not have enough money to provide that 
service; so we will ration VA health care service.
  I thought that was reprehensible, quite frankly. I still do. But see 
what is happening in this budget. At a time when we are at war, right 
now as we stand here in the safety of the people's Chamber, the House 
of Representatives, at this very moment there are soldiers in 
Afghanistan and in Iraq risking their lives. We have lost over 1,440 
soldiers. We have had thousands and thousands injured. We have got 
soldiers coming back nearly every day to the United States with these 
terrible injuries; and the President of the United States, the 
Commander in Chief, the man who made the decision to send these troops 
into war, has sent us a budget; and in his budget he woefully 
underfunds VA health care. It does not make sense.
  Some people may be listening and may be thinking, That Ted Strickland 
is a Democrat; so he is just leading this partisan attack on the 
President or on the Republicans because he is a Democrat.
  I want to share some press releases that have been issued within the 
last couple of days, not from me but from our veteran service 
organizations. For example, I have a press release that was issued by 
the Disabled American Veterans. The DAV, the Disabled American 
Veterans, is an organization that has 1.2 million members. It was 
founded in 1920, and it is a chartered organization, chartered by the 
United States Congress, and it represents our Nation's wartime disabled 
veterans. And they issued a news release describing the President's VA 
budget proposals. The heading is the ``President's Budget Bad News for 
Sick and Disabled Veterans.'' I would just like to share some of the 
comments that the DAV has shared in their press release:
  ``The administration has proposed one of the most tight-fisted 
miserly budgets for veterans programs in recent memory, said the 1.2 
million member Disabled American Veterans. It is making health care 
more expensive, and it is making health care less accessible to 
millions of America's defenders . . . `As a result' '' of this budget, 
`` `VA facilities across the country will cut staff and they will limit 
services even as the number of veterans seeking care is on the rise.' 
''
  This is not me talking. This is the Disabled American Veterans 
talking.

                              {time}  2100

  It says, ``The DAV and other major veterans organizations are united 
in calling on Congress to provide $31.2 billion for veterans' medical 
care, which would be $3.4 billion more than the President has 
requested. We are also united,'' the press release says, ``in opposing 
new fees and higher copayments on certain veterans, because the 
administration wants to impose a new $250 annual user fee on certain 
veterans, and veterans under this President's budget will see their 
prescription drug copayments more than double, going from $7 to $15 a 
prescription. There will be belt tightening at VA hospitals.''
  Then the press release concludes this way: ``This budget proposal is 
bad news for the Nation's veterans, made even more distressing in the 
light of war in Iraq and military operations in Afghanistan and 
elsewhere.''
  That is what the disabled American Veterans have to say about 
President Bush's budget.
  I see my good friend, the gentlewoman from the great State of Florida 
(Ms. Corrine Brown), a member of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. I 
yield to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to first of all 
thank the gentleman and the ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois 
(Mr. Evans) for holding this special order.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the gentleman a question. I know I will 
get an opportunity to speak. But I was reading an article concerning 
the Under Secretary of Defense David Chu, and he said that the 
organizations that the gentleman was pointing to, the VA organizations, 
have been too successful in lobbying Congress and that we are taking 
money that should go to the military for weapons and we are giving it 
to the veterans.
  Can the gentleman expound on that for me?
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Well, reclaiming my time, Under Secretary Chu should 
be reprimanded by the President.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Fired, excuse me.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Fired would be okay with me as well. This man, who is 
the part of the Pentagon, really said that money going to America's 
veterans was interfering with our ability to defend our country.
  Well, it is almost laughable. If it was not something that had been 
said by a very high person within the administration, we would just 
ignore it and discount it.
  I can tell you this: The National Commander of the American Legion 
has written a letter strongly objecting to what Mr. Chu has said. But 
this is just an example of the kind of disregard we find within this 
administration when it comes to veterans. There is an attack upon 
America's veterans within this administration. I do not know if it is 
coming from the President, but the President is the Commander-in-Chief, 
and he is the one who has the responsibility to stop it. He needs to 
stop it.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. If the gentleman would yield further, 
let me just read the statement. ``Aggressive lobbying by veterans 
groups that brought about medical care for retired military health 
brings about this great drain on fighting wars, Chu said in the 
article. He described it as painful to move moneys for new weapons 
programs to accounts that fund TRICARE.''
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, people can listen to 
his words and make their own judgments about what he has said. I, quite 
frankly, think it is shameful.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. If the gentleman would yield further, 
my question to the gentleman is I agree that we have a budget, and you 
determine something about the people of a country how you use that 
budget. It is clear to me that this President, President Bush, his 
priority is for the people that funded his campaign. It is not a matter 
of whether we should fund weapons or supplies that our troops need or 
whether we should take care of the veterans who have taken care of us 
for so many years and who need us in their twilight. It is these tax 
cuts that this administration wants to make permanent. That is the 
problem. It is a matter of priorities.
  I mentioned earlier today that Valentine's Day is coming up. 
Everybody wants to show you some love. If you love me, you are going to 
send me flowers or spend some money on me, you are going to take me out 
to dinner. But it is clear that the Bush administration does not love 
these veterans. In other words, they talk a great talk, but they do not 
walk the walk or they do not roll the roll. If you look at their 
budget, the budget priorities are to their rich friends that funded 
their campaign coffers, and not to the veterans that need them.
  I come from a district where the veterans are not the richest in the 
country. In fact, one-third of the homeless people are veterans that 
have fallen through the safety net. They are not getting the health 
care they need or the mental health counseling or the job 
opportunities. It is a failure. The richest country in the world, and 
we are trying to put the burdens of the war on the veterans. Help me, 
somebody.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, talking about 
priorities, I will just share this bit of information. When one 
discounts the additional moneys that the VA will get from imposing user 
fees and increased copayments for prescription drugs on our veterans, 
we find that the increase

[[Page 1971]]

in the VA budget is four-tenths of one percent, four-tenths of one 
percent.
  Now, I think it is interesting to know that the American Legion and 
other veterans groups have requested $3.5 billion as an increase in 
health care spending for VA health care for fiscal year 2006. They have 
requested an additional $3.5 billion. The President is proposing a $9.5 
billion foreign aid bill, foreign aid bill, which is an increase of 
$2.1 billion.
  Now, I am not saying that all foreign aid is wrong or bad or should 
not take place, but I am troubled when we are taking American tax 
dollars and we are increasing significantly the amount of our foreign 
aid by $2.1 billion, and we are only increasing the budget for VA 
health care by four-tenths of one percent.
  Mr. Speaker, I shared the press release from the Disabled American 
Veterans. I would like to share some information from the Paralyzed 
Veterans of America. The Paralyzed Veterans of America was founded in 
1946. It is the only Congressionally chartered veterans organization 
which is dedicated solely for the benefit of individuals with spinal 
cord injuries or disease.
  Here is what the Paralyzed Veterans of America had to say about 
President Bush's budget: ``Paralyzed Veterans of America calls the 
administration's budget proposal woefully inadequate, forcing some 
veterans to pay for the health care of others by increasing fees and 
copayments.''
  Then I will read from the press release. It says, ``The release of 
the fiscal year 2006 budget request by the administration demonstrates 
a callous disregard for the services of America's veterans and 
represents another attempt to place the burden of needed funding 
increases on the backs of disabled and sick veterans. 'I do not 
understand where their priorities are,' said Andy Pleva, the National 
President of the Paralyzed Veterans of America. He says, 'at a time 
when more and more service members are returning from Iraq and 
Afghanistan in need of health care and when aging veterans of previous 
wars are turning to the VA for their medical needs, the administration 
proposes a basically flat budget, with the only increases coming out of 
the veterans' pockets. This is not acceptable.'''
  Mr. Speaker, the Paralyzed Veterans of America speculate that if the 
President's budget is enacted, if higher prescription drug costs are 
included and if enrollment fees are demanded, the result will be to 
drive veterans out of the system. In fact, the Veterans Administration 
itself estimates that as a result of the increased fees, 213,000 
veterans will leave the health care system next year.
  I want to tell you, many of these veterans are of limited income, 
they are sick, they are in need of medical care and they may not be 
able to get it elsewhere. Yet this Nation, this administration, this 
Congress, if this budget is enacted, will be responsible for turning 
these veterans away, and the American people I think do not want that 
to happen.
  As I said earlier, I truly believe that the American people want this 
Nation to care for its veterans.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. If the gentleman will yield further, I 
am reminded of the words of the first President of the United States, 
George Washington, whose words are worth repeating at this time. ``The 
willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, 
no matter how justified, shall be directly proportioned as to how they 
perceive the veterans of earlier wars are treated and appreciated by 
their country.''
  Now, I think that is very profound. In other words, how we treat our 
veterans today will determine whether our young people will enlist and 
commit themselves to go to war to fight for our great country. 
Profound, does the gentleman not think?
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Well, I think it is. That may explain why there seem 
to be some problems developing with the enrollments. I think people are 
watching what this government is doing, and as they feel like promises 
are not being kept, I think they have just reason for questioning 
whether or not this Nation would really value and prize their service 
to the country.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. If the gentleman will yield further, 
for the last 4 years, every year we have had to go through this dance, 
and predominantly the Democrats have had to fight to increase these 
budgets. But this year, I guess after the election and after the 
President and his party have flim-flammed the American people, the 
gloves are off. They do not care.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Reclaiming my time, I do think this year is different 
than in past years, because in past years, this House is controlled by 
Republicans. That means every committee has a Republican as the Chair 
of that committee.
  For the last 4 years, the veterans of this country have had a friend 
in the chair's position, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) was a member of the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs for 24 years. For almost a quarter of a 
century this man served on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. He had 
served as the chair of the committee for the last 4 years.
  Quite frankly, when the President tried in the past to impose a user 
fee of $250 a year and when he tried to increase the cost of a 
prescription drug from $7 to $15, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. 
Smith) as the Republican chairman was effective in keeping those 
increases from being enacted.
  Well, what did they do to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith)? 
At the beginning of this Congress the Republican leadership in this 
House called the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) in, according to 
newspaper reports, and they basically stripped him of his position as 
the Chair of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. But not only that, 
they took him off the entire committee, a committee he served on for 24 
years.
  I wonder, where were the friends of the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Smith) in this Chamber? I say to my friend from Florida, if the 
Democratic leadership were to treat you like that, I would stand up and 
say, ``This will not happen.''
  Where were the friends of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith)? 
The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), in my judgment, is the 
leading pro-life representative in this entire Chamber. He is a man of 
impeccable credentials. He is a humanitarian. He has been concerned 
about the violation of human rights not just here at home, but around 
the world.

                              {time}  2115

  He is a conservative, a conservative, a member of the Republican 
Party. But because he had the gall, because he had the courage to stand 
up and be an advocate for veterans, the leadership in the Republican 
Party stripped him of his chair position and removed him from the 
committee.
  Now, I want to tell my colleagues, this was not an accident; this was 
planned. And as word was starting to spread that this was going to be 
done to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), 10 national veterans 
organizations in this country got together and they wrote a letter to 
the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) urging him to protect the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) from being treated in this way.
  I will share with my colleagues what those 10 organizations were: the 
American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Military Order of 
the Purple Heart, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Vietnam 
Veterans of America, the Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, the 
Blinded Veterans Association, the Jewish War Veterans, and the 
Noncommissioned Officers.
  And they wrote Speaker Hastert and they said, ``On behalf of the 
Nation's leading veterans organizations representing over 5 million 
members, we write to urge that Congressman Chris Smith remain chairman 
of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs.'' They went on to say, 
``Over the past 4 years, Chairman Smith's national reputation as the 
foremost congressional expert and advocate on veterans issues has 
continued to grow. All of our organizations have recognized his 
extraordinary public service and accomplishments through our own 
prestigious awards.''

[[Page 1972]]

  And then they said, ``In our view,'' and this is coming from these 10 
national veterans organizations, they said, ``In our view, it would be 
a tragedy if Chris Smith left the chairmanship. The unnecessary loss of 
his leadership, knowledge, skill, honesty, passion, and work ethic 
would be a deeply disturbing development, not just to us, but to the 
millions of veterans across the country whose lives he has touched.''
  And did Speaker Hastert listen to these veterans organizations? 
Absolutely not. It did not matter. He was an advocate for veterans. He 
wanted to adequately fund VA health care. Well, with this 
administration and with this Republican leadership, it was just not 
acceptable.
  Now, people may be listening and they may be thinking, there goes Ted 
Strickland again. He is that Democrat, he is trying to beat up on the 
Republicans. Listen, I want to say to my colleagues that if my 
Democratic leadership was doing this, I would be as upset as I am with 
the Republican leadership. And these 10 veterans organizations, they 
are not partisan groups. These groups exist for the sole purpose of 
standing up for veterans and veterans needs.
  So we are trying to let people know this can be stopped. This budget 
has not yet been enacted; it has not been approved. And it is my hope 
that people across this country, when they hear what was done to Chris 
Smith and when they hear what these veterans organizations say about 
this budget, will call the White House, will call their 
representatives, will get in touch with their Senators and say, this 
has got to stop. You cannot balance this budget or even try to cut the 
deficit, because there is no attempt to balance the budget, obviously; 
but you cannot cut this deficit on the backs of America's veterans. I 
yield to my friend.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the sad thing is that the 
gentleman is talking about the people's House; and the people's House, 
under this administration, more so than even when the Republicans took 
over, but under this administration has been run like a dictatorship. 
It is very, very sad, and I am glad that the gentleman from Ohio 
pointed out what it is that veterans can do. I know the organizations 
are talking to their members because they are talking to me. But they 
need to contact their Member of Congress and let them know, as Senator 
and former Governor Chiles used to say, ``This dog won't hunt.''
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I want to share another saying with my 
colleague that came from Benjamin Franklin. Benjamin Franklin said, 
``If you act like sheep, the wolves will eat you.''
  Now, I say to my Republican colleagues, if your leadership could do 
this to Chris Smith, they can do it to you. Now, you were elected, we 
were all elected by over 635,000 or so constituents. Our obligation is 
to come up here and be the representative of the people who elected us. 
We are not up here to please the Democratic leadership or the 
Republican leadership or even to please the President; we are up here 
to represent our people.
  But I want to say this: if you become so cowed, if you become so 
afraid, if you become so sheep-like that you are afraid to speak out, 
for example, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) spoke out in 
defense of veterans health care, if you are so afraid that they are 
going to take away your chairmanship or they are somehow going to 
punish you politically, then you cannot really be an independent 
spokesperson for your people.
  I want to tell my colleague, I would urge my colleagues, I would urge 
the friends of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) here in this 
Chamber and around this country to have the courage to speak up and 
speak out and say, what was done to Chris Smith is wrong. He is a good 
man, a good person. The only thing he did, the only thing he did was to 
stand up for veterans.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I think this is bigger 
than Chris Smith in that it is the House of Representatives that we can 
change in 2 years; we can change the direction of this country. And it 
goes back to elections, I have to say it. I mean, what happens in an 
election controls everything we do, from the time you are born to the 
time you die and everything in-between.
  This veterans budget, I have to say if it had been Senator Kerry, we 
never would have received a budget like this, or if it had been any of 
the Democratic candidates and, really, if it had been any of the other 
Republican candidates. This administration is totally insensitive to 
the needs of the veterans and the people. They talk a great talk, but 
they do not walk the walk. They only care about the 1 percent of the 
people that contribute to their campaign, and if you are not writing 
checks to the Republican campaign, then just forget it.
  But the veterans can turn this around. I know that they can mobilize. 
I know what they can do; I have seen it happen in Florida. Once before 
they cut major health care assistance in Florida, and the veterans and 
organizations and groups got together. They called their Congress 
people and, let me tell my colleague, not only did they put the money 
back; they do not even know how it got out. So I know they can do it.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I made reference earlier this evening to 
a press release from the Disabled American Veterans and the Paralyzed 
Veterans of America. There was also a press release put out by the 
American Legion. The national commander, Mr. Thomas Cadmus, made a good 
point in his press release. He said, ``Veterans' health care is an 
ongoing expense of war.'' In other words, VA health care is not 
welfare.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. No.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. VA health care is something that veterans have earned 
through their service to this country.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is a contract. It is a 
contract. When those young men and women in their prime go and fight 
for us and serve for us, we owe them. They should not be fighting for 
the guarantee that we promised them, basic health care, and yet, these 
copayments and these fees, they cannot afford it. They live on a fixed 
income.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. That is right.
  Mr. Speaker, concluding the press release that was put out by the 
American Legion, the national commander said this, and I am quoting: 
``No active duty service member in harm's way should ever have to 
question the Nation's commitment to veterans. This is the wrong message 
at the wrong time to the wrong constituency.'' And I would just repeat 
again, we have lost well over 1,440 lives in Iraq.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. But, sir, if the gentleman will yield, 
how many have been wounded? How many have been disabled? They are going 
to come back, and then they are not in the military system, they are in 
the VA system. How will the VA system handle them when they are 
proposing to cut out thousands of nurses?
  Now, I know the gentleman has the same problem that I have when they 
come to us about how long they have to wait in order to get assistance, 
and we have to intervene. For basic assistance, they are put on a 
waiting list, and they wait for weeks and months. Yet we are going to 
have all of these veterans, thousands coming back.
  The gentleman mentioned the number that have been killed, but what 
about those who have been wounded, coming into a system that we are 
cutting to the bone. It is a failure. There is a Constitution and there 
is a separation of power. We have a duty as Members of the Congress, of 
the people's House, to deal with this budget.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, much of what we heard all day here in 
the Chamber and we heard from the Special Orders that preceded us was 
these are tight budgetary times. Well, they are tight budgetary times 
because of certain things.
  Now, part of the reason they are tight budgetary times is that we 
have taken our national resources and we have given them to the richest 
people in America in the form of tax breaks, people who really are 
doing quite well

[[Page 1973]]

already. Is it not ironic that at a time of war, we would give tax 
breaks to rich, comfortable, wealthy people at the very upper end of 
the income spectrum and, at the same time, the President, and this is 
the President of the United States, the man who stood right up there a 
few days ago and gave the State of the Union address, the Commander in 
Chief, the man who made the decision to send these soldiers into war; 
that he would send us a budget and in that budget he would ask that the 
cost of a prescription drug for a veteran be increased, be increased 
from $7 to $15; and he would ask that these veterans have to pay a $250 
annual copayment.
  Let me say this, and then I will yield to my friend. The American 
people need to know this, and many of them do. But we get paid pretty 
well here in the Chamber. I do not know, I truthfully do not know the 
exact dollar amount of our salaries, but it is over $150,000 that a 
Member of the House of Representatives makes. I think that is a pretty 
good income. I think the gentlewoman and I and other Members of this 
Chamber ought to be able to go out and buy our prescription medications 
or we could pay an increased copay, but many of the veterans that I 
represent are fairly poor. In fact, most, most of the people in my 
district are struggling economically. But these veterans, many take 10 
or 12 or 15, some that many prescriptions a month, and to take and 
increase the cost from $7 to $15 a prescription, if they have 10 
prescriptions, that is a lot of money.
  Some of these veterans may make as little as $22,000 and be 
considered, as some of the newspapers refer to them, as higher income. 
Well, I think $150,000 that we make is higher income; I do not think 
$22,000 is higher income.
  But here we had a President, and I keep going back to the President 
because, quite frankly, he is, he is the Commander in Chief. He is the 
one that crafts the budget. He sends the budget over here to the 
Congress. The budget originates at the White House. It is his budget. 
So he sends us a budget, and in that budget they very specifically say, 
veterans ought to pay more for their medicine; veterans ought to pay a 
user fee; we are going to have less money for veterans nursing home 
care; we are going to have fewer nurses and other health care 
professionals working in our VA hospitals; we are going to have to 
close some hospitals; and, by the way, we are not going to keep the 
promise to provide the kind of resources that were necessary to 
construct new and better facilities for our veterans.

                              {time}  2130

  These are the facts. These are the facts.
  I would invite any of my colleagues, Republican or Democrat, to come 
down here to the Chamber and join us tonight and dispute these facts. 
These are the facts, and they need to be exposed, because once the 
American people find out what is happening to America's veterans, I 
believe they are going to be outraged. And I think they are going to 
say, this cannot happen.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the 
gentleman again for having this special order tonight and pointing out 
what the veterans can do to turn this around.
  We in this House cannot do it. We can point it out. We can have town 
hall meetings in the districts. We will do that. We can talk to the 
groups and organizations. But I do know that the veterans have the 
power to influence this body and the other body and the White House. If 
nothing else, they can put a circle around that White House and let 
them know that Humpty Dumpty must fall.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that I say to veterans 
frequently is that all politicians like to be associated with veterans. 
You look at political brochures, you see political commercials and you 
see the President standing on a platform with flags on the ground and 
veterans standing around him.
  I will admit, I like to be with veterans too, and I like to have 
veterans support me. But the fact is I think all the veterans, one of 
the ways they can fight back is they can say, you know, we will not get 
our picture made with any politician who does not support us. No more 
pictures, no more being on a platform. If the Representative or the 
Senator or the President does not support me, then I will not allow 
myself to be used in a picture or in a political brochure or in a 
political commercial to support that man or woman.
  I think it is time that veterans start playing hard ball with us, 
because the fact is that we do respond to the feedback that we get from 
our constituents. I am just absolutely convinced, I would say to my 
friend from Florida, I am absolutely convinced that if we were to take 
a poll of the American people and we were to ask them if they felt that 
this country had an obligation to care for those who have fought our 
wars and defended our freedoms, the American people would say, 
Absolutely, and we support whatever it takes to make sure they get the 
kind of health care they need.
  So I believe the American people are on the side of the veterans. And 
the administration may not be, the leaders of this House may not be, 
but the American people are exactly where they should be on this issue.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I would say that if we did 
a poll, one of those CNN polls or one of those polls that we do every 
day, and ask, Do you want the 1 percent tax cut done away with to 
completely fund the veterans program, I bet we would get 75 or 80 
percent saying, Let us fund the veteran program. Without a doubt, the 
American people want to pay their debt, and we owe these veterans.
  It is not welfare. It is paying for people that have stood up for you 
in their prime, and now they need us. And what are we doing? We are 
giving tax breaks to people that contribute to our campaign. And that 
really bothers me because when you talk to the veterans, you know that 
they are vulnerable, they are sick, and they need the assistance.
  Many of the people that you pass right here in D.C. on the street, 
homeless, are veterans that the system has failed. One-third of the 
homeless people are veterans.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I just want to say in closing that I 
think what we are talking about here is a moral issue. We hear a lot of 
talk from politicians these days about moral behavior and immoral 
behavior. And quite frankly, I think that the way we treat the most 
vulnerable among us says something about our character. I think whether 
or not we keep the promises, the promises that have been made to our 
children, to our older people, to our veterans says something about our 
character.
  So I think what we are talking about here is more than just a 
political disagreement or a matter of judgment. I think it says 
something about the kind of people we are; and I would hope that those 
who are responsible for this terrible budget would reflect upon this.
  Mr. Speaker, in closing I would just like to say I am so happy that 
our good ranking member, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) is 
here. The gentleman has been on the committee for much longer than I 
have, so he has the benefit of having the historical point of view, 
knowing from whence we have come. We appreciate his leadership.
  I would just like to say to my friend from Florida, I want to thank 
you for taking the time to be here tonight and for assisting in this 
special order.
  I was wondering if the gentlewoman has something to say in 
conclusion.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. In conclusion, our work is cut out for 
us. We know what we have to do to educate the American people, to turn 
this horrible proposal for these veterans around.
  I think one of the scriptures that I particularly like is, To whom 
God has given much, much is expected.
  God has been good to America. It is important that America is good to 
the people that have stood up for us throughout the years.
  This budget is unacceptable. I remember talking once to the veterans 
groups and I said, this administration, the Bush administration, talks 
a great talk, but they do not walk the walk.

[[Page 1974]]

And this was the Paralyzed Veterans and they said, They do not roll the 
roll either. And that is truth.
  But the key is, we together, Democrats and Republicans, and 
particularly the veterans' organizations can turn this around. We 
really need a dedicated source of funding. We should not have to deal 
with this every single year.
  Mr. Speaker, the following is an article entitled ``Veterans Angered 
By Official's Comments.''

                [From the Tribune-Herald, Feb. 7, 2005]

                Veterans Angered by Official's Comments

                         (By Richard L. Smith)

       Let me see if I have this straight. We need to squeeze just 
     a little more sacrifice out of our military veterans. Is that 
     it?
       That seems to be the implicit message of David Chu. He is 
     an economist who spent the better part of the past quarter-
     century as a federal bureaucrat. He now directs the Pentagon 
     human resource shop as under secretary of defense for 
     personnel and readiness. Chu managed to outrage some veterans 
     with his comments in a Jan. 25, 2005, interview with the Wall 
     Street Journal.
       If you believe Chu, money going for military retirement and 
     veterans benefits would be better spent on weapons. He called 
     the amounts of money expended on veterans ``hurtful'' to the 
     national defense in the Journal article.
       I sent a list of questions I had about Chu's remarks by e-
     mail to the Pentagon. I was told my questions could not be 
     answered by my deadline. So I extended my deadline. I am 
     still waiting to hear from the Defense Department.
       Aggressive lobbying by veterans groups that brought about 
     medical care for retired military helped bring about this 
     great drain on fighting wars, Chu said in the article. He 
     described it as ``painful'' to move money for new weapons 
     programs to accounts that fund Tricare, the managed health 
     care system for military personnel and retired service 
     members over the age of 65. And, of course, the Pentagon 
     official said proposals to reduce the reservist retirement 
     age from 60 to 55 would also not be a good idea.
       Chu's remarks did not go over well with everyone, if you 
     can imagine that.
       Bob Clements, a retired Air Force brigadier general from 
     Carmichael, Calif., said he has a large e-mail network made 
     up of hundreds of veterans. Clements sent out a message 
     recently in which, in his words, he ``decided to cut loose'' 
     on Chu. The retired fighter pilot and medic pointed out in an 
     e-mail missive he launched that Chu knew that military 
     retirees had until recently been slow to band together to 
     protect their benefits. He urged veterans to continue to 
     stand up and fight for their rights. Clements said he also 
     has been around the block enough to know that such a high-
     level official ``is not spouting off'' on his own.
       ``I don't see how these remarks could be made by a 
     subordinate without the secretary of defense's and the 
     president's approval,'' Clements told me during a phone 
     interview.
       U.S. Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Waco, said he believes Chu was 
     running an idea up the flagpole to see whether it gets 
     saluted or picked off. Edwards prefers the latter.
       ``I hope that Secretary Chu doesn't reflect the 
     administration's position,'' Edwards told me by phone from 
     Washington. ``But if he does, that trial balloon should be 
     shot down by howitzers.''
       Edwards, who represented the Army's massive Fort Hood base 
     until Texas Republicans redrew congressional districts in 
     2003, went to the House floor after the Journal article hit 
     the streets and denounced Chu's remarks.
       ``The fact is that we are spending too little, not too much 
     on our veterans and military retirees,'' the congressman told 
     colleagues. ``The truth is that last year's budget for 
     veterans health care did not even keep up with inflation. So, 
     in effect, we had a real cut in veterans health care spending 
     during a time of war. What happened to the principle of 
     shared sacrifice during a time of war?''
       Edwards said Chu's remarks were a slap in the face for 
     veterans.
       ``I find Secretary Chu's statement to be offensive and 
     outrageous,'' Edwards told me. ``It's offensive to every 
     serviceman and woman who has ever put on the uniform and has 
     been willing to risk their life for their country.''
       Veterans organizations were also quick to condemn the 
     statement made by Chu. A statement by the American Legion 
     said that the government's care for its veterans was part of 
     a moral contract that should not be broken. The Military 
     Officers Association of America, which the Journal article 
     called the main force behind retiree benefits, labeled Chu's 
     assertions as ``baloney.''
       If Chu is the Bush administration's canary in the coal mine 
     of public opinion, then perhaps we are getting a glimpse of 
     where veterans benefits are headed. Take retirement pay for 
     example. Chu said in the article that the 19-year-old 
     enlistee doesn't care about annuities. Young GI Joe or Jane 
     would rather have the cash to buy a ``pickup truck,'' the 
     Defense Department official told the Journal.
       Edwards calls such a contention insulting to the young men 
     and women who risk their lives to serve. Benefits, he said, 
     are part of what helps the military attract and keep the 
     high-caliber service members in its employ.
       Of course, these benefits come from all of the taxpayers 
     out there and not just veterans. But there does seem to be a 
     high level of public support for those who are fighting our 
     wars. Do you think those with ribbons magnets on their cars 
     will begrudge health care to those troops who return home? It 
     would seem hard to imagine. Why, some people probably 
     wouldn't mind throwing in a pickup truck in as part of the 
     package.

  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend.
  In closing, I just say this. We have said a lot of things tonight. 
Some of those hearing what we said may object to what we have said. I 
would invite any Member of this Chamber, Republican or Democrat, to 
join us some time next week and we can debate these issues. If my 
Republican friends think that I am being unfair in what I am saying, I 
would welcome them to come to this Chamber next week so we can talk 
back and forth, because these are serious matters and I do not want to 
be unfair to anyone.
  But I tell you, I do not want the President to get by with this 
budget without its being exposed. I do not want the leaders of this 
House to get by and say, these are tough budgetary times and everybody 
has got to take a hit. The veterans have already taken a hit. They have 
fought our wars. I do not think they should have to fight for the 
health care they need.
  Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Veterans' Affairs 
Committee--and on behalf of thousands of veterans in South Dakota--I 
rise this evening with serious concerns about what the President's 
budget means for our nation's veterans.
  As Congressman Strickland and other of my colleagues have expressed, 
fulfilling the government's obligations to our veterans is a moral 
issue that reflects our national character. At a time in our nation's 
history when we are asking young men and women for tremendous service 
and sacrifice, we must send a clear message to them and their families 
that veterans' health care is considered an ongoing cost of national 
security during times of both war and peace. That consideration should 
be reflected in the President's budget, but it is not. With a new 
generation of veterans coming home from Iraq and Afghanistan, now is 
the time we should be proving that a promise made is a promise kept. At 
a time of tight budgets, it all comes down to priorities, and the needs 
of our country's veterans should be at the top of the priority list, 
not at the bottom.
  I am concerned about what the President's budget means for the men 
and women who have fought to protect our individual and collective 
freedoms and what the budget means for the dedicated doctors, nurses 
and other personnel in VA medical centers and clinics across the 
country who strive to provide quality health care to our veterans. The 
plans to assess annual enrollment fees for certain veterans who desire 
to access care from the VA and to increase co-pays for veterans' 
prescription medications are unacceptable.
  Our veterans deserve better than this budget, and that is why I am 
proud to be an original cosponsor of Ranking Member Lane Evans' Assured 
Funding bill. We should take veterans' health care funding out of 
annual budget fights as a top priority for our nation.
  This weekend, as I return to South Dakota, it will be my honor to 
take part in a homecoming ceremony for the 147th Artillery unit from 
the northeast part of the state. As I meet these brave men and women, I 
will thank them for their service and exchange handshakes and hugs with 
them and their family members. Every member of Congress should be able 
to tell the troops when they return, with certainty, that our 
government will live up to its obligations in recognition of their 
service to the country. It is the right thing to do. And we will 
continue to fight for those who have served.
  Mr. STRICKLAND. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.


                            LEAVE OF ABSENCE

  By unanimous consent, leave of absence was granted to:
  Mr. Neugebauer (at the request of Mr. DeLay) for February 8 on 
account of travel delays.


                         SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED

  By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the 
legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was 
granted to:
  The following Members (at the request of Ms. Woolsey) to revise and 
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:

[[Page 1975]]

  Mr. Brown of Ohio, for 5 minutes, today.
  Ms. Woolsey, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mr. DeFazio, for 5 minutes, today.
  Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mr. Davis of Illinois, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mr. Cummings, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mr. Gene Green of Texas, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mr. George Miller of California, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mr. Sanders, for 5 minutes, today.
  Ms. Herseth, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mr. Scott of Georgia, for 5 minutes, today.
  Ms. Watson, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mr. Cuellar, for 5 minutes, today.
  The following Members (at the request of Mr. Gingrey) to revise and 
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:
  Mr. Gingrey, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mr. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mr. Hyde, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mr. Boehner, for 5 minutes, today.
  (The following Members (at their own request) to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material:)
  Mr. Kingston, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mr. Owens, for 5 minutes, today.

                          ____________________