Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege of being there with the gentlewoman, and I think we both really felt deeply in our hearts the pain as we talked with workers.

I remember one woman that we talked with who had children, and she told us she worked 9.5 hours a day, 5 days a week. She had 30 minutes during the day as a break, and her total take-home pay was $38 a week. And I just will never forget that woman and the fact that we have a government that

has participated in that kind of what I would consider immoral situation where a working mother would work that hard and be compensated at that level. It is just pathetic.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding to me. It is terrific to have the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) and my good friend and mentor, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) here.

I am glad this conversation is headed in the direction here this evening in which I think it is heading because we are moving away from the numbers. We are moving away from the charts, and we are starting to talk about the people. The people whose lives are affected by the decisions that are made by this administration and by those of us who serve in this body. And we hear a lot of

talk today, and I am glad we do, about the need for morality in our government.

I think it is immoral for our government to support policies which benefit the richest people on the face of this Earth, many of them Americans, many of them from other countries that own or operate, manage those large multi-national companies. I think there is a moral dimension here.

The gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) mentioned some church people who were engaged and involved in this. I think the churches in the United States of America should be concerned about CAFTA. I think they should be concerned about NAFTA. They should be concerned about human exploitation.

Now, many of us in this Chamber belong to different faiths. I happen to be a part of the Christian faith. And Jesus Christ said, As oft as ye have done it unto the least of these, you have done it unto me.

I think we have an obligation, those of us who do embrace faith, to let that faith express itself in the policies that we endorse as individual Members of Congress and also have that impact, the policies that are pursued by this country.

I think it is immoral, quite frankly, for us to enter into an agreement that results in the exploitation of poor Mexicans or poor people from Costa Rica or elsewhere. I think it is immoral for a working mother to be paid 12 cents for a garment that is ultimately sold for $20 or $25. And I ask myself, who is benefiting from such a policy? There is money involved. Someone is getting very rich. And yet it is a form of human exploitation.

So I wish our President and I wish leaders in this House would understand that there is a moral dimension to United States trade policies.

Mr. Speaker, well, I represent a part of the Appellations region of Ohio. Every time I go home and I think my colleagues here have similar experiences. I talk to people who have lost their jobs. They have in many cases lost their health insurance. They have families. They may be 55, 57, 59 years of age. They have chronic health conditions.

What is happening to us as a country that we would be willing to just tolerate such conditions? It troubles me. It really troubles me. And I do believe, as I said to a reporter yesterday, he said, Congressman, tell me what is wrong with these trade agreements that you seem to be so against? And I said, They leave out the human dimension. They leave out concern for people.

Now, quite frankly, I do not believe Americans are willing to give up our middle class, to lose our standard of living, to participate in the exploitation of poor people around this world simply to get a pair of blue jeans at Wal-Mart for a couple of dollars cheaper than they may be able to get them than if they were made right here in the good old U.S. of A.

I believe the American people have different values than that. I think it is our leaders who need to question their values. I think it is the people who are benefiting, richly benefiting from these agreements, that ought to be called into question and their motives ought to be questioned.

And there is, I think, one word that pretty much summarizes what is the driving force behind NAFTA, behind the WTO, behind permanent trade relations with China and now this so-called CAFTA agreement. And it is greed. It is greed.

How are we going to increase our own wealth or the wealth of our investors? If that is going to result in poor Mexicans or poor Americans being exploited, then I think our government has an obligation to stand up and speak out, change course. We are on the wrong course. I would say if I could talk with him, Mr. President, we are on the wrong course. We are on the wrong track. We need to reverse. We need to go back. We need to reevaluate the results of NAFTA.

As the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) had said earlier, why in the world, given the results of NAFTA, would we pursue CAFTA? It is almost irrational.

Mr. Speaker, as our Nation struggles with soaring health care costs, bankrupt pensions, and devastating job loss, it is organized labor that leads the fight to protect, defend, and advance the economic security of our Nation.

I was recently meeting with leaders from the Ohio Association of Public School Employees, and we talked about all of the issues facing our Members and their members in my home district and throughout the State of Ohio. We talked about the contract-by-contract struggle to hold health care costs down. We talked about the impact of the State budget and the devastating ideas to expand privatization, make it easier to lay off workers, and force school districts to minimize or diminish health insurance, and to limit collective bargaining.

The answer to Ohio's problems is not to weaken labor unions like OAPSE, but to strengthen them and to let all of our communities share in the benefits that labor has worked so hard to achieve. I am proud of unions like OAPSE, and I am proud to share in their fight for dignity and respect.

Right now, in my State, we have a crisis for our retirees, the very people who gave their entire working lives to serve children in Ohio's schools. They need a retirement that offers a good quality of life and one that relieves the pressure of deciding between food and medicine.

Mr. Speaker, we need to take care of the people who take care of our kids; and if what is happening in Ohio is any indication, we are failing miserably.

On Monday of this week, I was at a school in my district; and while at that school, I learned of schools in our region terminating breakfast programs in order to save money. I learned of art and music classes being canceled. I learned of libraries being closed in some schools, and operating on a half-time basis in others. I learned of teachers of gifted students being laid off. I learned of high schools where all foreign language classes have been canceled. In short, I heard about conditions which, left unabated, will lead to the disintegration of our great State.

But standing here in the people's House, I am hopeful. I am hopeful because the people of Ohio are fighters, and unions like OAPSE are leading that fight. Because of their efforts, we will bring back Ohio and Ohio will once again lead the Nation in building a better future for our kids.

What this discussion needs is some maturity. I was just sitting here listening to you, and what you say is absolutely true. But I just will point out that under the President's plan, if you make more than $20,000 a year, you can expect a significant reduction in your benefits. Think of that.

Now, they can call these people higher income if they want to, but today $20,000 is not a huge salary. So the statistics you gave for the $37,000 income and the $58,000 income and the $90,000 income brackets were accurate, but you can make as little as $21,000 and you are going to experience a significant reduction in benefits under the President's plan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back to my young friend from Ohio.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to praise a company located in my Congressional district. Solvay Advanced Polymers is a company in Washington County, Ohio that is on the cutting edge. But despite its success, Solvay hasn't lost its connection and commitment to our southeastern Ohio communities. Just a few months ago, we had a very big reminder of Solvay's commitment to the community of Marietta, Ohio.

As many in this House know, in January most of the state of Ohio was hit by a brutal snowstorm and torrential rain. In Washington County, the storm produced 40-year high flooding levels for the second time in five months. As you can imagine, the resources of community groups were already stretched thin from the previous flood. The Washington Morgan Community Action Agency was faced with the dual challenge of taking care of its own flood damage while helping its low-income clients through their devastating flood losses.

It was in this trying time that Solvay stepped in and offered assistance and support that went well beyond what anyone could expect. The employees and management of the local Solvay plant put their own personal needs aside to serve the neediest in their community at a time when many of them were likely suffering from the flood themselves.

As the board of the Washington-Morgan Community Action Agency said to the company in a recent letter:

``Solvay Advanced Polymers was one of the first businesses to respond to our request for flood relief supplies. Going beyond that you offered both people and transportation to help deliver the supplies we received. For two days your maintenance department employees took supplies throughout the area going door to door and business to business delivering cleaning supplies and water. Without you, getting needed items to the community would have taken much more time, slowing down the recovery period.

In January our health clinic was inundated by flood water for the second time in four months. Solvay Advanced Polymers volunteered to provide the needed construction supplies and labor to restore the dry wall and carpeting to better than the original condition. Without your assistance we would have been much delayed in returning the building to a condition in which we could provide health services to the low and moderate income women that depend on the clinic's services.

While a number of Solvay employees were responsible for the wonderful assistance described above we wish to especially thank Max Blake, Maintenance Superintendent, Bob Bagley Maintenance Supervisor, Mark Martin, Maintenance Foreman and Grover Wallace, Human Resources Director. The contribution to this agency and the community made possible by your caring efforts cannot be over emphasized.''

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all in southeastern Ohio, I would like to thank Solvay and its Washington County employees for their selflessness and service during last January's flooding. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to share the story of Solvay and to give this company a recognition they most certainly deserve.

Mr. Speaker, I support this motion to recommit because it provides added financial protections for veterans, military personnel and their families who are enduring financial hardships as a direct result of serving this country.

Additionally, this motion to recommit offers help to members of the Reserves and National Guard who all too often must leave behind their family jobs and businesses. It provides protection not just during service but also for the 2 years after service when our veterans make the transition back to civilian life. This measure will guarantee what the Servicemembers Relief Act does not. It will provide exemptions from the means test, financial assistance and time, something our servicemembers selflessly give to the Nation and something we should give to them.

The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act does not provide substantial bankruptcy protections. Rather, it provides a simple, temporary 90-day delay in bankruptcy proceedings once a servicemember is released from active duty.

Let us be clear. No bankruptcy safe harbor or exemption exists for our citizen soldiers under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act currently. This motion is not an attempt to kill the bill. It is simply a reaction to a real problem that has been highlighted in countless news stories, by the National Military Families Association, Disabled Veterans of America, and individual servicemembers. These are people experiencing real and difficult financial situations. I support this motion to provide this narrow protection for those men and women who have served our country, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

I thank my dear colleague for her efforts in this behalf.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to thank my friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), for sharing these moments with me as we stand here in the Chamber of the people's House, the House of Representatives, to honor those from our region.

Ohio is a patriotic State, and the great Mahoning Valley is certainly a patriotic region of Ohio. Over the years, literally thousands of young men and women have left the great Mahoning Valley and have served in this country's Armed Forces. They are serving today, so many of them, in harm's way, unselfishly giving up of their time and their talents, while their loving families wait at home, hoping and praying that they will be safe.

Both the gentleman and I have visited Walter Reed Hospital. We have talked with Americans who have lost their legs, many have been blinded, so many have sustained brain injuries. I have been to the Bethesda Naval Hospital and seen young people walking down the hallways with their families walking with them, young people who have been terribly disfigured.

We are paying a great price for the war that is currently under way; and the least we can do, the very least we can do as a Nation is to make sure that when these honored people come home that they are treated with justice and fairness, that they are able to receive the health care that they have been promised and that they deserve.

As we stand here in the safety of this great Chamber, we should never forget that many of our friends and the families and loved ones from the great Mahoning Valley are in harm's way. So we honor them, and we honor their families, because they have joined in the sacrifice as well.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following letter for the Congressional Record:

Dear Representatives Strickland and Murphy: The undersigned

organizations in the Mental Health Liaison Group,

representing patients, health professionals and family

members, are pleased to support your legislation, the

Medicare Mental Health Copayment Equity Act. Under your

legislation, Medicare's historic discriminatory 50 percent

coinsurance for outpatient mental health care would be

reduced over six years to 20 percent, bringing the

coinsurance into line with that required of Medicare

beneficiaries for other Part B services.

Simply put, current law discriminates against Medicare

beneficiaries who seek treatment for mental illness. This

affects elderly and non-elderly Medicare beneficiaries alike

when they seek mental health care. According to the 1999 U.S.

Surgeon General's report on mental health, almost 20 percent

of elderly individuals have some type of mental disorder

uncommon in typical aging. In addition, elderly individuals

have the highest rate of suicide in the U.S., often the

result of depression. The Surgeon General's report states,

``Late-life depression is particularly costly because of the

excess disability that it causes and its deleterious

interaction with physical health. Older primary care patients

with depression visit the doctor and emergency rooms more

often, use more medication, incur higher outpatient charges,

and stay longer at the hospital.''

The 50 percent coinsurance requirement also is unfair to

the non-elderly disabled Medicare population. Because many of

these individuals have severe mental illnesses combined with

low incomes and high medical expenses, a 50 percent

coinsurance obligation is a serious patient burden. For

elderly and non-elderly Medicare beneficiaries alike,

Medicare is a critical source of care. Your legislation to

ensure that Medicare beneficiaries needing mental health care

incur only the same cost-sharing obligations as required of

all other Medicare patients would end the statutory

discrimination against Medicare beneficiaries seeking

treatment for mental disorders.

Thank you for your leadership in addressing this important

issue for the nation's 40 million Medicare patients.

Sincerely,

Alliance for Children and Families.

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry.

American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry.

American Association of Children's Residential Centers.

American Association of Pastoral Counselors.

American Association of Practicing Psychiatrists.

American Group Psychotherapy Association.

American Mental Health Counselors Association.

American Occupational Therapy Association.

American Psychiatric Association.

American Psychiatric Nurses Association.

American Psychoanalytic Association.

American Psychological Association.

American Psychotherapy Association.

Anxiety Disorders Association of America.

Association for the Advancement of Psychology.

Association for Ambulatory Behavioral Healthcare.

Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law.

Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity

Disorder.

Clinical Social Work Federation.

Clinical Social Work Guild.

Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance.

Eating Disorders Coalition for Research, Policy & Action.

Ensuring Solutions to Alcohol Problems.

International Society of Psychiatric-Mental Health Nurses.

NAADAC, The Association for Addiction Professionals.

National Alliance for the Mentally Ill.

National Association for Children's Behavioral Health.

National Association for Rural Mental Health.

National Association of Anorexia Nervosa and Associated

Disorders (ANAD).

National Association of Mental Health Planning & Advisory

Councils.

National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems.

National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems.

National Mental Health Association.

Suicide Prevention Action Network USA.

I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding. We also have with us tonight the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee). There are some things that I think the American people need to understand about what is happening here in Washington, D.C., especially as we discuss the budget and its relevance to the veterans population. I am amazed. I am truly amazed and puzzled. I really do not understand why the President and why the Republican leadership in this House would choose to treat veterans with such disdain.

Why do I say that? I will share with you some recent history with this administration. One of the first things the President did after becoming President during his first term was to increase the cost that a veteran pays for a prescription drug from $2 a prescription to $7 a prescription. I introduced legislation to repeal that increase but unfortunately I was unable to get that legislation passed. So now many veterans, thousands of veterans, pay $7 for each prescription they get through the VA. Seven dollars may not sound like a lot of money, but many of the veterans who are in need of medication take 10 or more prescriptions a month, and many of these people are on fixed incomes. Many of them have fought our wars. In fact, you can be a combat- decorated veteran and you can be a priority 8 veteran. That is the veteran that the administration says makes too much money to currently qualify to participate in VA health care. Or you can be a priority 7 veteran, and a priority 7 veteran is a veteran that has a medical need but the medical need is not a direct result of the military service, and so they are charged more for the VA health care they receive.

So the President increased the cost of a prescription drug from $2 to $7. Shortly after, the VA issued a new policy. It was in the form of a memo that went to all the VA health care providers. It said basically, and I am summarizing, but it said too many veterans are coming in for service and we cannot afford to treat all these veterans and consequently there are waiting lines; and so we are going to solve this problem by rationing care to veterans, and we are going to ration care by prohibiting our nurses and social workers and physicians from proactively informing veterans of the services they are entitled to receive under the law.

We are talking about services that lawfully were made available to them by the actions of this Congress. I thought that was egregious. I have filed suit against the Veterans' Administration in conjunction with the Vietnam Veterans of America to try to overturn this egregious policy. That suit is currently before the court. I am hopeful the court will recognize that the VA is in violation of law and will force them to withdraw this onerous gag order.

We see a pattern developing here. Because then the VA decided that they were going to create a brand-new category or priority group for veterans, and they called that new category priority group 8. They said, this group just simply can no longer enroll and receive VA health care. And why? Well, because they make too much money, so they should not be able to get health care. The formula that is used to determine if a veteran is high income and no longer entitled to receive VA health care is based on a Housing and Urban Development formula.

In my district, you can make as little as $22,000 a year and the VA will consider you high income and tell you that you can no longer receive VA health care. Think of that. Those of us who serve in this Chamber, the American people have a right to know that, make over $150,000 a year. Maybe we can pay $7 a prescription for our prescription medications if we need to. Maybe we can find the ability to afford the kind of health insurance that will take care of our medical needs if we need to. But I submit to you that if you make $22,000 a year, you are not high income. I think it is shameful, I use that word, but it is shameful that this government would make a decision to treat our veterans in that manner.

And now, before I yield back to my friend from Ohio, the Republican leadership in this House has done something just very recently that the American people have a right to know about. Because over the last Congress, Democrats and Republicans worked together on the VA Committee to preserve adequate funding. It was not as much as I wanted it to be, but at least it was enough to maintain at least the current level of services. And we did that with the help of some of our Republican colleagues. The chairman of the VA Committee in the last Congress really enabled us to keep VA funding at a level that enabled current services to continue. That Republican Congressman's name was Chris Smith. He is a Republican Congressman from the State of New Jersey. Many people who watch C-SPAN know Chris Smith because he frequently stands in this Chamber and he argues and advocates for an end to abortion. I would call Chris Smith, at least in my judgment, he is the most pro-life Member of this House. I just point that out to emphasize that he is a true conservative. He is a true conservative.

Chris Smith had served on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for 24 years, nearly a quarter of a century. He had been the chair of the VA Committee for the last 4 years. But because he was an advocate for veterans, Speaker Hastert and the leadership in this House decided they were going to strip him of his chair's position. Not only did they do that, they removed him from this committee that he had served on for 24 years, and they did that in the face of opposition from 10 of the national veterans service organizations. I am talking about the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the AMVETS, the Vietnam Veterans, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Noncommissioned Officers, the Jewish War Veterans. All of these veterans organizations wrote Speaker Hastert a letter, they all signed their name to that letter, and they said to Speaker Hastert, it would really be a shame for Chris Smith to be taken out of the chair's position and to be removed from this committee because he has been our friend. He has been an advocate for veterans. What was Speaker Hastert's response? Chris Smith was stripped of his chair's position, removed from the VA Committee.

I am asking my friend from Ohio, do you see a pattern here? It seemed that time after time after time, this administration and the leadership in this House of Representatives, they are taking steps that are harmful to veterans.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, what the gentleman says is true. There are several ways we can find the money to pay for veterans health care. For one thing, we can cut back on these tax cuts that have gone to the richest people. There are people in this country who have never served in the military, never put their lives on the line; and yet this President, during this time of war, has decided to give them a huge, huge tax cut, while our veterans, many of them becoming increasingly elderly and disabled, are being deprived of adequate health care, having to wait for weeks and months to get a doctor's appointment. That is just wrong.

So the President had a choice: tax cuts for the richest people in America or adequate funding for VA health care. He chose tax cuts for the richest among us.

There is something else I would like to share with my friend from Ohio. We are spending in Iraq today about $1.25 billion a week. Think of that. And we cannot find an additional $3.5 billion for our veterans, all of our veterans. I do not want to choose among our veterans. I do not want to say this veteran is worthy and this veteran is not worthy. All of these people have served the country. They are in need of help and health care, and I am getting sick and tired of hearing about focusing on the core constituency. Of course we need to focus on the core constituency. But that does not mean that we should neglect other veterans as well. And that is what is happening. And I hope the people in this country, especially the veterans and the families of veterans, are paying attention because we are treating our veterans in a shabby manner.

The President's budget that he sent us a couple of weeks ago is a shameful document. It cuts back on nursing home care for veterans. It is a shameful document. And I do not want to hear my colleagues over there say these are tight budgetary times, we just do not have the money.

We have the money, Mr. Speaker, to pay for what we think is important. We have the money for that. The fact is that President Bush and this leadership do not consider America's veterans a priority. They cannot run from that fact. And I would just invite any of my Republican friends to come to this floor and let us discuss this openly. Let us discuss the fact that President Bush is asking that our veterans pay increased costs for medications, that he wants to impose a $250 annual user fee for many of our veterans to use a hospital. I think it is shameful. I really think it is shameful.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, as I say, I would invite any of my Republican friends to come down here and challenge what we are saying because what we are saying is the truth.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that, as I understand it, about $9 billion is unaccounted for.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I have introduced legislation to make this government stop what they are doing, stop fighting these veterans, these tortured veterans. The gentleman explained it well, but I would like to just take a stab at it as well because what we have here is these are soldiers that were captured during the first Gulf War, and they were terribly tortured under Saddam Hussein's regime. This government, as my colleagues recall, had held on to billions of dollars that were Iraqi dollars, and when these tortured Americans sued and won their suit, they were laying claim on those dollars that this country had possession of, and this administration returned that money to Iraq and literally used the Justice Department to go to court to try to set aside that judgment that would compensate these soldiers.

And the gentleman from Washington State is right. At the same time, here is Secretary Rumsfeld speaking of the Iraqis who were abused at Abu Ghraib prison saying they are going to be compensated. So our Secretary of Defense is willing to use American dollars to compensate Iraqis who had been abused by Americans, and at the same time this government is fighting to keep our American troops who were tortured in Iraq from being compensated with Iraqi dollars. How can one explain that to the American people? It is unbelievable.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I think it shows a moral blindness. I really do. I mean, we are talking here about decisions that are made that affect the lives of American soldiers, and in this case soldiers who were tortured. There is no question that they were tortured. There is no question about that. There is no question as to who was responsible. It was the Iraqi Government under Saddam Hussein.

Now this administration is trying to play, I think, word games because they are saying, well, that was the government that existed under Saddam Hussein and now that Saddam Hussein has been removed from office, this new government is not responsible for what happened under Saddam Hussein. But I would remind the gentleman from Washington State the money that we were holding on to here was money that was from the Saddam Hussein government and regime. So I would like to ask the President if I had a chance to talk with him, I would like to say: Mr. President, why do you think Iraqis who were mistreated at Abu Ghraib deserve to be compensated with American tax dollars and at the same time you do not believe that American soldiers who were tortured when they were captured and held in Iraq should be compensated with Iraqi dollars? That seems like a fairly straightforward question, and I just wonder how the President would answer that.

And the soldiers that are active duty.

And Reservists and Nation Guard.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, we are standing here and talking about this, and there are probably Americans watching and perhaps a few listening to us, and what we are saying sounds almost unbelievable.

I understand how someone listening to this may be puzzled, because there is no rational explanation, as far as I am concerned. Why should this government put a greater value on compensating Iraqis than on compensating tortured Americans? It just does not make sense. And it does not fit the image that is usually presented to the American people by this administration, because you hear a lot of rhetoric about how much we appreciate our soldiers, how much we appreciate what the military does for us, but the world now knows, and certainly most Americans that have paid attention, that we did send our soldiers into battle without adequate body armor, and we have them driving around in vehicles in Iraq that are not properly armored, and we have people over there conducting patrols and driving long distances and taking fuel from one part of Iraq to the other part of Iraq without night vision goggles. So we know there has been that kind of neglect.

But what my friend has brought to our attention here tonight regarding these tortured Americans and the administration's fighting them through

the courts to keep them from getting compensated by the Iraqi government is nearly unbelievable.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, why is there not an outcry about this? I think one of the reasons is that the American people are not fully aware of what is happening and find it hard to believe. I can understand why someone listening to us tonight would find it hard to believe what we have said, because it is so outrageous.

It is outrageous. As I said a little earlier, it is contrary to the public image we get from this administration, because if you listen to rhetoric coming from the White House and coming from the leadership in this House here, you would think that they really appreciate the veterans and they care for veterans and they were going to do everything they could to care for veterans. But the facts just do not match the rhetoric.

You could also wonder why is there not an outcry from many of the Republicans who I know care about veterans? I have friends on that side of the aisle that I know are veterans themselves, and they deeply in their hearts care for veterans. The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) was one such person that I mentioned, the former Chair of the committee. But I think there is a hesitancy to speak out, because if you speak out and you challenge the leadership over there, there is a price to pay.

The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) found that out. When he spoke up for veterans, he was stripped of his chairman position and he was taken off of a committee that he had been on for 24 years. That is almost unbelievable. Twenty-four years, a quarter of a century almost, this man had served on that committee.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield further, I do not think is it is a good message to the rest of the Republicans who serve there. The message is if you challenge us, you are in trouble. So it silences even their own Members. It keeps them from having the ability to speak up and speak out.

I have said before, we are elected to come here to represent the people who vote for us and make us their representative. We do not come here to serve the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert). We do not come here to serve the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) or the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi). We come here to represent the people who send us here.

If my Republican friends do not have the freedom to speak up and speak out about what they think is right for their constituents without getting a committee taken away from them or getting a position taken away from them, well, then they become impotent, quite frankly. They are not able to be a true representative.

I ask this question: Where are the friends of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith)? Where are they in the Republican caucus? I want to tell you, if that happened to my friend from Washington State, if our Democratic

leadership did that, or if our Democratic leadership did that to my colleague from the State of Ohio, I would be outraged, and I think Members of our caucus would be outraged. We would not stand for it.

But there is a silence over there that is very, very troubling. What it means is there is one or two or three people who are in charge of what happens in this House, and the others go a long to get along.

I quoted this statement from Ben Franklin before. I think it is good and applicable. Ben Franklin said, ``If you act like sheep, the wolves will eat you.'' I wonder if my colleagues over there are not acting like sheep? They are being awfully quiet. They let an honored, respected, hard-working, committed, devoted, dedicated member of their caucus be treated in that manner, be treated in that manner, and I did not hear any public outcry at all. None at all.

I think it must be because of fear, because I know there are people over there who respected the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), who believed he was right in his thinking and in the position he was trying to take as an advocate for veterans. Yet I did not hear any public outcry.

I think it is a shame that this House would be so constrained out of fear of what the leadership may do if the individual members speak up and speak out.

Mr. Speaker, the President has sent his budget dealing a blow to veterans health care, and I would like to share with you what the veterans' organizations across the country think about it.

Paralyzed American Veterans say the release of the 2006 budget request by the administration demonstrates a callous disregard for the services of America's veterans.

The VFW says the President has delivered a disappointing funding request for the Department of Veterans Affairs. This budget will cause veterans' health care to be delayed.

The DAV, the Disabled American Veterans, says the administration has proposed one of the most tight-fisted, miserly budgets for veterans' programs in recent memory. As a result, VA facilities across the country are cutting staff and limiting services even as the number of veterans seeking care is on the rise.

The American Legion says veterans' health care is an ongoing expense of war. You do not thank veterans for serving their country and then tell them, Oh, by the way, you had better

not get wounded or you will have to pay extra for your health care.

Shame on this terrible veterans budget.

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.

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. 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 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.

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.

Well, reclaiming my time, Under Secretary Chu should be reprimanded by the President.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.''

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.

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.

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.

VA health care is something that veterans have earned through their service to this country.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 9 o'clock and 38 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, February 10, 2005, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Washington State.

This is a serious time in the history of our Nation. We are facing a lot of problems. We have lost well over 1,440 lives in Iraq. We have had literally thousands, 10,000 or more seriously injured. And yesterday we received the President's budget. And a part of that budget had to do with veterans health care.

Now, at a time when we have lost so much and are continuing to lose soldiers in Iraq, when the death benefit for the family of a lost soldier I think is currently $12,500, the administration had indicated that they would support increasing that up to $100,000; there is no mention of that in the President's budget.

There is no mention of that. There is no budgeting for this increased benefit for the families who have lost loved ones in this war. That puzzles me. But there are other things in this budget that puzzle me regarding veterans.

People listening to this, I would say to my friend from Washington State, may interpret this as just partisan bickering, and so I would like to share a press release that came from the Veterans of Foreign Wars. This is not a political group. This is a group devoted solely to trying to advocate for veterans who have participated in foreign wars.

The heading of this press release is ``The President's 2006 Budget Disappoints the VFW,'' and it begins, ``'The President has delivered a disappointing funding request for the Department of Veterans Affairs,' said the leader of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S., in reaction to the administration's fiscal year 2006 budget request that was released today.''

I will not read the entire letter, but I will read parts of it. ``Two key issues are the proposals to charge a $250 enrollment fee that would impact approximately 2.2 million veterans and a prescription copayment that would more than double from $7 a prescription to $15'' a prescription.

It continues, ``The VFW is concerned that the enrollment fee and the prescription copayment increases will cost some veterans thousands of extra dollars in health care expenses, while driving others away from the VA.

``The message this budget communicates,'' the VFW says, ``is that part of the Federal Government's deficit will be balanced on the backs of military veterans.''

Listen to this. This is amazing. The budget proposal from the President slashes $351 million from veterans' nursing homes that will result in 28,000 fewer veterans getting nursing home care, and it reduces State grants from $114 million down to just $12 million. It cuts $4 million from medical and prosthetic research. At a time when we are having soldiers getting their arms and legs blown off in Iraq, this President sends us a budget that cuts by $4 million money for prosthetic research.

Mr. Speaker, well, I think what the gentleman is describing is true all over the country. It is less problematic in certain areas and much more problematic in other areas.

I just shared a press release from the Veterans of Foreign Wars regarding the President's budget. I have here a second press release from the national commander of the American Legion regarding the President's budget.

It begins, ``The leader of the Nation's largest military veterans organization reacted strongly to the effects that President Bush's budget plan will have on veterans. He called it a smokescreen to raise revenue at the expense of veterans.

`` `This is not acceptable,' said Thomas P. Cadmus, national commander of the 2.7 million member American Legion. `It is nothing more than a health care tax designed to increase revenue at the expense of veterans who served their country.' ''

This is not the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), the Democrat, or the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland), the Democrat, speaking. This is the national commander of the American Legion.

The fact is that when the President first came into office, most veterans were required to pay $2 for a 30-day prescription. The President increased that almost immediately after coming to office from $2 to $7, and in this budget, he is asking that the price to veterans be increased from $7 to $15.

As I have said before on the floor of this House, many of our veterans take 10 or more prescriptions per month, and so the President wants to increase their burden. The President's budget also calls for an annual $250 user fee that many veterans would have to pay just to use a VA facility. This is unconscionable.

Here is what we have: Young Americans fighting this war, many losing their lives, many more being terribly injured, coming back home; and what they are going to find is a VA health care system that is being woefully underfunded by the President who chose to send them to war. That is a serious matter, but it is not just my opinion. It is the opinion of the major veterans organizations in this Nation.

I do not think this is an accident. I think this is a planned effort on the part of the administration to significantly reduce the money they are putting into VA health care.

I want to share with my friend from Washington State something that he may already know, but for 24 years one of our colleagues, a Republican Member, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), has been a member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs. For 24 years he has served on that committee. For the last 4 years, he was the Chair of that committee.

The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) is, in my judgment, the most prolife Member of this body. I do not always agree with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), but I admire him as a man of principle and character and courage.

The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) was recently removed, not only as the Chair of the Committee on Veterans Affairs, he was taken off the committee altogether after years of service. What had he done wrong? Well, apparently it was because he was an advocate for veterans. He wanted this President and this leadership in the House of Representatives to give adequate funding for VA health care, and so he was stripped of his Chair's position and he was removed from the committee.

Think about that. He had been on that committee for almost a quarter of a century, and 10 national veterans organizations wrote the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) a letter, urging the Speaker to keep Chris Smith as the Chair of the Committee on Veterans Affairs.

I just want to tell my colleague who those people were and the organizations they represent: The executive director of the American Legion; the executive director of the Veterans of Foreign Wars; the national adjutant of the Military Order of the Purple Heart; the executive director of the Paralyzed Veterans of America; the national president of the Vietnam Veterans of America; the executive director of the Disabled American Veterans; the national executive director of AMVETS; the executive director of the Blinded Veterans Association; the executive director of the Jewish War Veterans; and the executive director of the Noncommissioned Officers.

They all signed this letter to Speaker Hastert, and they said in this letter, among other things, ``In our view, it would be a tragedy if Chris Smith left the chairmanship.''

They went on to say that ``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.''

What did Speaker Hastert do? He ignored the plea from these 10 national veterans organizations. He removed the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) from the chairmanship of the Committee on Veterans Affairs because he was an advocate for veterans.

So I am not surprised that the President's budget woefully underfunds VA health care, because I think it was part of the plan; and in my judgment, they had to get rid of the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) so that they would not have one of their own being critical of the President's budget in the VA Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is. In fact, if I could just share something else with my colleague, this is a letter to the Wall Street Journal that was written also by Mr. Thomas P. Cadmus, who is the national commander of the American Legion, from the national American Legion's headquarters, and it criticizes a statement that was made by an administration official, Mr. David Chu.

Who is Mr. David Chu? He is the Pentagon Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness. And Mr. David Chu was quoted as saying that ``Veterans' pay and benefits are,'' and I am using this word from his statement, ``hurtful, hurtful,'' and are, quote, ``taking away from the Nation's ability to defend itself.''

Here is a member of this administration blaming veterans, saying that because of their benefits they are somehow interfering or taking away from this Nation's ability to defend itself. I

mean, that is really pathetic. It is pathetic. And the national commander of the American Legion wrote this letter to the Wall Street Journal complaining about David Chu's statement.

So what I think we are seeing here is a calculated effort to reduce funding for veterans' health care and veterans' benefits, and the President, quite frankly, has got to be responsible for this. I mean, he is the commander in chief.

And let me point out something else to my colleague. Right now, when a serviceperson loses their life, there is a $12,500 gratuity or compensation made available to the survivor, the survivor's spouse or to the family.

Now, we are in the process right now of offering bonuses of up to $15,000 for many of our soldiers to get them to enlist.

In some cases, for Special Operations Forces, we are told they are being offered a bonus of up to $150,000 to remain active in the military. So a suggestion has been made, and I have signed on to legislation, I think probably my friend from Washington State has as well, that would increase this death benefit to $100,000. That is certainly not enough, but it at least is a reasonable effort on the part of this Congress to increase those funds from $12,500.

I have gone to several funerals in my district, for soldiers who have been lost in Iraq. We have lost from the Ohio Sixth Congressional District six soldiers already. Two of those men were in their late 30s and the others were in their early 20s. So it is quite pathetic, I think, that this country would offer the survivors $12,500. And if we can increase it up to $100,000, that may be more helpful to the families left behind.

The fact is, there is no mention of this in the President's budget, and that really puzzles me. Why is this not accounted for in the President's budget that he just released to us?

If my colleague will yield, what the President and what the administration will say is that they are increasing funding for VA health care, and on the books it looks as if they are. But much of that increase is coming from the veterans themselves because they are calculating as a part of their budgeting process the $250 annual user fee that they are going to charge veterans. They are calculating the increase that they are going to get from charging veterans more for their prescription drugs, so that will go into the till; and they count that as increased funding for VA health care. So, quite frankly, they are asking veterans to fund their own health care.

Now, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), as I said earlier, was replaced as Chair of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and we have a new Chair who has been quoted as saying that he thinks the VA should focus on the core constituency, those with service-connected disabilities and the very poor. But, quite frankly, the people that they are referring to as higher income can be making as little as $22,000 and be considered higher income and be expected to pay this $250 annual user fee and the increased cost for medications.

Now, if you are making as little as $22,000 a year and you have expenses and you have a lot of medical needs and you need a lot of prescription drugs, then you are not high income.

Folks in this Chamber, I do not know exactly how much we make, quite frankly, but it is over $150,000 a year. We are pretty well paid here. The American people need to know that. We are pretty well paid. But what about the veteran who is making a little over $20,000 a year? And the people in this Chamber have the gall to say that those veterans ought to pay more? They ought to pay more?

It is, quite frankly, shameful. And that is why we are here. That is why we are talking about this. Because the veterans of this country need to know what the truth is.

Now, the President said in his State of the Union address not many days ago, standing at that podium right up there, he said, ``Society is measured by how it treats the weak and the vulnerable.'' We have an aging veteran population in this country. More and more veterans are in need of nursing home care, and what does this budget do, the President's budget? It cuts funding for veterans' nursing home care. At a time when the need is increasing, there is less money for it.

It is, quite frankly, shameful. There is no other word that is adequate to describe it. It is a shameful set of circumstances that we are facing. I would hope that the veterans of this country

would understand what is being done to their health care system.

Mr. Speaker, I would tell my colleague from Washington that a gentleman by the name of J.P. Brown, who has a weekly radio show where he talks about veterans' issues, had me as a guest on that show recently. I talked about what happened to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and what was going on with VA health care funding. Mr. Brown has said that he has gotten more calls from listeners than he has ever received before.

I suspect that what we are talking about here tonight will be changed, because I do believe the veterans of this country and those who care about them are going to speak up and speak out.

I shared part of a press release from the Veterans of Foreign Wars. I would like to share a few more comments from that press release. This press release from the Veterans of Foreign Wars says, ``This budget will cause veterans' health care to be delayed and may result in the return of 6month-long waiting periods. That is especially shameful during a time of war.''

Then it continues: ``The VFW national commander is now calling on all 2.4 million members of the VFW and its auxiliaries, as well as all service members and their families, to urge their congressional Members to correct the shortfalls in this budget.''

Then the press release concludes with this statement. ``Without the American soldier, there would not have been a United States of America, and I shudder to imagine the rest of the world. Our Nation must honor its commitment to care for those who are ultimately responsible for every liberty we enjoy today.''

So my sense is that the leadership of the various veterans' organizations in this country are going to mobilize their members to descend upon this Capitol, at least through e-mails and letters and phone calls, faxes, and so on, to demand of their Representatives, our colleagues in this Chamber, that this shameful budget, especially the parts that deal specifically with veterans' health care, be rejected by this Congress, and that we do what we should do, which is to provide adequate funding so that those who are in need of health care, those who have served the country and are in need of health care, have the ability to receive it in a timely manner.

Mr. Speaker, my Republican colleagues are willing to stand on this floor in support of nominee Gonzales, but the sad fact is they were not willing to stand up and support their own colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith).

The gentleman from New Jersey is arguably the most pro-life Member of this House, a true conservative. But that was not enough for this Republican leadership. This good man, who had been on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for 24 years, was removed of that committee, deprived of his chairmanship, because he spoke out for veterans and their needs.

Speaker Hastert received a letter from 10 national veterans' organizations, the American Legion, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Military Order of the Purple Heart, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Vietnam Veterans of America, Disabled American Veterans, AMVETS, Blinded Veterans Association, Jewish War Veterans and Noncommissioned Officers, all urging Speaker Hastert to keep the gentleman from New Jersey as the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. He was removed.

If your leadership can do it to the gentleman from New Jersey, it can do it to you, my friends.

Mr. Speaker, on January 3 of this year, 10 national veterans organizations wrote a letter to Speaker Hastert. 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 Veterans, the AMVETS, the Blinded Veterans Association, the Jewish War Veterans, and the Noncommissioned Officers.

Why did these 10 groups write a letter to Speaker Hastert? They wrote this letter because they were concerned that rumors were spreading throughout this Chamber and across Capitol Hill that the chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs, a Republican, the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs that had been there for 4 years, this man had served on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for 24 years, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the rumor was spreading that Chairman Smith was going to be replaced as the Chair of the VA Committee and that someone else would be put in that position.

These veterans groups were terribly concerned because, as they said in the letter, the Nation's leading veterans organizations representing over 5 million members are writing to ``urge that Congressman Chris Smith remain chairman of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs.''

They also said in the letter, ``Over the past 4 years, Chairman Smith's national reputation as the foremost congressional expert and advocate on veterans' issues has continued to grow.'' They further said in their letter, ``In our view, it would be a tragedy if Chris Smith left the chairmanship'' of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

The Speaker of this House and the leadership of this House ignored all of these 10 national veterans organizations, and they not only removed the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) as the chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs; they removed him from the committee entirely, a committee that he had served on for 24 years. Why did they do this? They did it because the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) is an advocate for veterans. He had the gall to speak up and to speak out and say we should do what we have promised to do and provide our veterans with the health care they need. And the leadership of this House would not tolerate that kind of insubordination. So this good man was stripped of the Chair's position and removed from the committee.

Let me say something about the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the person. In my judgment, he is the most pro-life advocate in this House of Representatives. I do not agree with the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) on every issue, but I can tell the Members that he is a true conservative. He is an advocate for the unborn. He is an advocate for human rights not only here in this country but around the world. And if this Republican leadership would do this to their own, one can only imagine how they may respond to others who would challenge anything the leadership may want them to do.

We are elected to come here by about 630,000 people. At least I think I have 631,000 constituents in my district of Ohio. We are elected to come here as independently elected representatives of the people that vote for us, and our responsibility is to speak up and to speak out. Benjamin Franklin has said, If you act like sheep, the wolves will eat you. And I would just like to say to my Republican colleagues who sat by and let the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) be treated the way he was treated by their leadership, if they can do it to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), they can do it to any one of them. And if they act like sheep, if they go along to get along or to protect themselves or to keep from being punished by their leadership, they will lose the ability to be an effective advocate for the people who sent them here to represent them.

Mr. Speaker, our good friend and colleague, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), had served on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs for 24 years. He had been the chairman of that committee for 4 years.

On January 5, representatives of 10 national veterans organizations wrote the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) asking him to keep the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) in that position. But he was removed. And a senior GOP aid referred to these veterans by saying, ``If they think coming up here to argue for Chris Smith is going to help Chris Smith, they are crazy.''

Well, the Republicans in this House may think the advocates for veterans are crazy, but we Democrats do not; and we will not stand by and let this administration or this House of Representatives decimate VA health care.