Peter DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, despite a flood, a sea of red ink, tomorrow Republicans propose to cut taxes. Cut taxes for whom? The wealthy. They want to float the yachts of the wealthy on a sea of red ink. One of the cuts is for people who get a chip dividend on their stocks and is paid for by dramatically increasing the costs of student loans. I have met with students at Oregon State and the University of Oregon during the break. These kids are working hard trying to realize the American Dream. Some of them are holding down three jobs and borrowing as much as they can, and the Republicans say they have to pay more for those loans so that rich people can pay a rate of taxes on dividends less than someone who works for $25,000 a year. That is an outrageous position for the majority party.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, at 2 a.m. before Congress adjourned a couple of weeks ago, we passed something called the reconciliation bill, theoretically the first attempt to begin to deal with the flood of red ink that is drowning our Nation. But these were kind of mean- spirited cuts that hit at those who really can't afford to give too much in order to protect the very wealthy. Here is how it worked. The biggest single category of cuts in that bill was $14.3 billion out of student loans. On the Republican side, they said, We didn't cut student loans. All we did was increase the cost of student loans. Well, it is the same impact on the students. They are going to double the origination fee on the student loans, they are going to charge students a fee to fix the rate, and they are going to give them a really high fixed interest rate instead of the rather reasonable rate that is available now. It is estimated for the average Oregonian going to a public school who borrows the maximum amount for 4 years, they will incur another $5,800 in loan costs. I went out to see what the students in Oregon thought about this and how they were doing. I was inspired. I went to the University of Oregon and Oregon State both, met with student government leaders and regular students who are getting financial aid. The stories were inspiring, what these young people are doing to try and better themselves. There was one couple, they had both been displaced workers. They have a child. They went through Lane Community College to get associate's degrees because it was cheaper and they borrowed $40,000 to do it. They are now at the U of O. They estimate they will graduate with over $100,000 in debt. There was the young woman who is holding three jobs, three jobs, and 14 credit hours. She said, Congressman, I'm going to have to reduce my credit hours. You know what that means. It's going to take me longer to finish school, which means I'm going to have to borrow more money. They said, when you were young and you went to school, and I think a lot of the Republicans have not thought about this maybe, you could take a summer job and save enough money to pay tuition at a public school. That was true. They said, If we get a summer job and save really well, we get just about enough money to buy our books. You can work full-time year round at a minimum wage job in Oregon where the minimum wage is considerably higher than the Federal minimum wage and still not have enough money to eat and pay your tuition, let alone your housing costs. This is a dire situation. The response of the Republicans is that these are the people who should sacrifice. These are the people who can afford to pay more to help rein in the reckless, wanton spending and debt being piled up on that side of the aisle. What is the trade-off the Republicans want? They are going to take the $14.3 billion that these students will have to pay in additional costs, many of them will probably have to give up on getting a higher education and just go to work in a dead-end job, and they are going to give it to the richest among us. It is going to continue the tax cuts for people who are lucky enough to clip coupons off of stocks, dividends. The trade-off is almost exact. So students will pay more for their loans, kids who are trying to get ahead, start a life, start a family, do better, become productive citizens, have a good living and pay taxes so that the richest among us will not have to pay taxes on their investments. But under their bizarre theory of trickle-down economics, somehow those students and everybody else is going to benefit by the fact that the richest among us, those who live off dividends on stocks, will pay a lower rate of taxes. What a bizarre view of the world from that side of the aisle. What a mean-spirited cut. I wonder how many people from that side of the aisle went and talked to students about this during the break. They probably went to the country club and chortled with the rich people over champagne after Thanksgiving dinner, but they did not go out and talk to the students who they are sticking it to nor the seniors who they are sticking it to in this bill or the hungry primary and secondary school kids whose school lunch programs they are cutting. Those are the people who have to sacrifice so the richest among us can have their tax cuts continue. Last year, according to the Internal Revenue Service, 99 percent of the people in America saw their incomes decline in real dollars. One percent saw an increase, those over $300,000; and they did not even do really that well. It is only 4 percent for between $300,000 and 1.3 million, but the people over 1.3 million, the people that these students are going to pay for their tax cuts, they saw a 10 percent increase in their income. There is something wrong here when we have young people working hard, trying to get ahead, and we are saying you are going to pay for the rich folks' free ride.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I have been in Congress for nearly 20 years. And in all that tie, I don't think I have ever been more ashamed of the House of Representatives than I am today. Deciding issues of war and peace should be one of the most solemn obligations we confront in Congress. Instead, what is going on today is pure political gamesmanship. Such gamesmanship demeans the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform, demeans our country's tradition of democratic debate, and is a total abdication of our responsibilities as Members of Congress. Rather than holding vigorous oversight hearings and having a full, open and honest discussion about the future of U.S. involvement in Iraq, the Republican leadership has rushed a resolution to the floor today that deliberately mischaracterizes the views of many Democrats, including the honorable Representative Jack Murtha, a decorated marine who served in both Korea and Vietnam, who have called for a safe and orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops over the next six months to a year. Instead of debating the merits of the ongoing occupation of Iraq and the White House's lack of an exit strategy, the White House and the Republican leadership in Congress have viciously attacked the integrity of both Republican and Democratic critics of the administration's Iraq war policies. Senator Hagel, a Republican from Nebraska, was so outraged by such character assassination that he said recently, ``The Bush administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them. Suggesting that to challenge or criticize policy is undermining and hurting our troops is not democracy nor what this country has stood for, for over 200 years . . . Vietnam was a national tragedy partly because Members of Congress failed their country, remained silent and lacked the courage to challenge the Administrations in power until it was too late . . . To question your government is not unpatriotic--to not question your government is unpatriotic.'' It is particularly galling when individuals like Dick Cheney, who has never served a day in the military, let alone been shot at by enemy soldiers on behalf of our country, questions the integrity of genuine heroes like Representative Murtha. Let me be clear, I have not supported an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. But, I do believe that in the wake of the December parliamentary elections in Iraq that the U.S. should negotiate a timeline with the new Iraqi government for the withdrawal of U.S. troops next year. I was heartened when millions of Iraqis, even at risk of life and limb, voted in late January to establish an interim government and constitutional assembly and again in October in support of a new Constitution. I wrote to President Bush just after the January election, suggesting that the U.S. negotiate a timeline for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops with the newly elected government. I felt it would be an ideal time to signal to the Iraqi people in a concrete way that the U.S. has no long-term designs on their country. While the President ignored my advice earlier this year, I renew my call and ask that following the December elections in Iraq, the U.S. negotiate a timeline to withdraw from Iraq next year. While some have argued that announcing a timeline for withdrawal would undermine our troops and allow the insurgents to wait us out, I disagree. Negotiating a timeline for withdrawal with the Iraqi government elected next month would show that democracy ended the U.S. occupation of Iraq, not terrorist or insurgent violence, and would allow our troops to come home with honor. Announcing the termination of the open-ended U.S. military commitment in Iraq and providing a concrete plan, including a timeline negotiated with the Iraqi government, for withdrawal could also undermine support for insurgents who have stoked the wide variety of grievances of ordinary Iraqis arising from the occupation to generate popular support for their cause. Most importantly, establishing a withdrawal plan and timeline would remove one of the chief causes of instability in Iraq, the occupation itself, by separating nationalist Iraqi insurgents trying to end the occupation, both Sunni and Shia, from foreign elements in Iraq for their own reasons. To the extent that a specific withdrawal plan, with benchmarks for measuring success in stabilizing Iraq, would turn Iraqis, both Sunni and Shia, against the foreign terrorists operating in Iraq, it could be a key turning point in stabilizing the country. Remember, the insurgency is made up of two primary camps--nationalist Sunnis and foreign terrorists. These two camps have different motivations and different goals. A timeline and withdrawal plan negotiated with the Iraqi government would also boost the Iraqi government's legitimacy and claim to self- rule and would force the Iraqi government to take responsibility for itself and its citizens. Just as importantly, a specific plan and timeline for withdrawal would provide much needed relief to over-burdened military personnel and their families and provide some certainty to U.S. taxpayers regarding the ultimate financial burden they'll be forced to bear. A plan for withdrawal could also help the United States in our broader fight against Islamic extremists with global ambitions, most notably al-Qaeda, by taking away a recruiting tool and training ground. Porter Goss, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, testified to Congress earlier this year that, ``Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists. These jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced and focused on acts of urban terrorism.'' He went on to say, ``The Iraq conflict, while not a cause of extremism, has become a cause for extremists.'' And, the Commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, General George Casey, testified to Congress earlier this year that ``the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency. `` Finally, establishing a firm timeline for withdrawal could accelerate the development of Iraqi security forces and deepen their commitment to defending their own country and their own government by eliminating the conflicted feelings they now feel by working with an occupying force. It would allow them to be defending a sovereign Iraqi government, rather than fighting on the side of an occupation force. The House should be debating this important issue and strategies for moving forward in Iraq instead of politically motivated straw man resolutions.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, in response to the speech of one decorated veteran of this institution, the Republican chairman of the Committee on Armed Services has taken this position of that Member, and he has written this abbreviated, interpreted version which mischaracterizes the position of Mr. Murtha. This is signed by Mr. Hunter, and it has a number on it. Just think of the mischief al-Zarqawi can do with this when he puts it on the Internet. We have a signed document from the Chair of the--chairman of the Committee on Armed Services asking for immediate withdrawal. Now, I have an e-mail, too. We all get them. This is from the president of the Oregon War Veterans Association, who did disagree with Mr. Murtha and knows my position against the war. He said, ``I am writing not only to thank you for your service, but also to ask you to be cautious about politicizing the war effort in Iraq. It is our determination to keep our servicemembers safe from injury that may come from pure partisan political sabotage,'' and if a fabricated document fabricating the position of the chairman of the Armed Services Committee with his signature on it which is now winging its way around the world is not pure partisan political sabotage, I do not know what is. If you have good sense, you will withdraw this resolution. We will even give you unanimous consent to do it, Mr. Hunter. But if you will not, maybe you can start doing your job: Hold a few hearings and a little bit of oversight in what is going on in Iraq, and maybe we can even act like the bipartisan Senate and ask that the President report to us on his goals, objectives and progress in Iraq. But none of this has happened in this House. This is the only substantive action you have taken on Iraq since we went in there, and you should be awfully ashamed.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Well, the Republicans are preparing for Thanksgiving, like many Americans. But early this morning they slaughtered the turkey. They chopped student loans, school lunch, foster care, long- term care, and Medicaid for struggling families. Now they are preparing to serve a huge portion, with gravy, to Americans with generous new tax breaks and extended tax cuts to those who earn more than $300,000 a year and who clip coupons for a living, hard-working Americans them. They are a little worried about kind of the mixed metaphor here, whether or not they will be called Scrooge, and some people will confuse Thanksgiving and Christmas. So they might put the bird back in the freezer and wait until closer to Christmas and hope that the struggling students and families forget what was taken from them to help those who earn over $300,000 a year. So that is the big decision on the Republican side of the aisle today. When does the turkey, composed of benefits that should have gone to struggling families, as a gift to the wealthy, get delivered, Thanksgiving or Christmas? Tough choice. Stay tuned.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, this week is American Education Week and I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and honor all the men and women across the country who serve as Education Support Professional, ESP, in our Nation's public schools. Education Support Professionals are essential school employees who interact daily with students, staff and parents. Public School drivers are essential school employees who interact with students, teachers, parents and the community every day. Bus drivers are the first and final link in the daily chain of events for every student in a school district. Standards of performance for bus drivers in a given day will include but not be limited to: checking all safety and communications equipment on the bus at the beginning and end of each day, protect children from unsanitary conditions, returning lost and found student personal property, manage emergency situations, handle and stabilize student behavior which may put them and other students or staff at risk. Take a moment to appreciate and recognize this fine group of Americans who are dedicated, loyal and committed to our future and the educational enhancement of all public school students.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, that was the ploy of your party. That is not mine, but I would take the time to keep Congress here. What we are talking about is Congress going on vacation, Congress going away for 2 weeks, have Thanksgiving at home, while we are taking food out of the mouths of kids and depriving students of loans through the reconciliation bill, borrowing $1.3 billion a day on behalf of the American taxpayers and getting them by another $39 billion. That is what we are talking about. On the reconciliation vote, if you would bring the reconciliation bill up as an open rule, you know that is a closed rule, too. You are negotiating cuts only with your side of the aisle. You do not intend to get a single Democratic vote; and the biggest cut in the bill is student loans, the party of opportunity. The second biggest cut in the bill is Medicaid; dump those problems on the States and deprive people of needed health care. Then, of course, we have the cuts in food security and other things in that bill. But we are not going to be allowed to offer amendments to cut Star Wars, the return to the Moon for $100 billion, corporate farm subsidies, tax giveaways. We will not be allowed to offer any amendments during the consideration of that bill. I would stay here through next week and have debate day after day and go through a series of amendments up or down on bringing some fiscal responsibility to this Congress.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlemen for yielding me time. Despite what the Member from Florida said, there are some who would like to speak to this issue. He said what does 30 days matter? Should it be 29? Guess what? The Congress assembled on behalf of the American people, and this administration will borrow $1.3 billion a day every day for those 30 days. We will be $39 billion deeper in debt a month from today. What would we do if we had an open rule? Well, perhaps we could make some real cuts in wasteful programs in the budget, instead of attacking the vulnerable, the students, kids getting lunches at school. They are just eating too much. Kids in foster care, long term care for seniors. Maybe we could go where the real money is. They asked Willie Sutton, Why did you rob banks? Because that is where the money is. The Republicans do not want to go where the money is because that is where the special interests are, the people who fund their campaign machine to keep them in the majority, to keep them borrowing $1.3 billion a day, indebting the American people as far as the eye can see. What cuts might we have to make? Well, let us see. The President has this bizarre idea that we should borrow a trillion dollars, one thousand billion dollars to go to Mars while we cannot meet the needs of people here on Earth, here in the United States of America. We do not have money for levees, jetties. We do not have money for the school lunch program. We do not have money for student loans, but we should borrow a trillion dollars to go to Mars. But before that, let us borrow $100 billion to go back to the moon to get some more dust. Great idea. No, personally, I would like to have an up or down vote on borrowing $100 billion to go back to the moon. A few other things, let us revisit Star Wars. The general in charge of Star Wars gave us some very, very encouraging news. He said the system to protect us against missiles that will never be fired against the United States because we could track them back and retaliate, they will smuggle a bomb in if they want to attack us. But he said it has a better than zero chance of working, better than zero after $100 billion and abrogating the anti-missile treaty. Whoa, that is good. Well, maybe we could visit that issue in an open rule. How about corporate farm subsidies? The American people are going to borrow around $25 billion this year to give subsidies for surplus crops being grown by corporate farmers and others. Well, maybe we could visit that issue on the floor. No, they would not want to touch that. There is a lot of money coming in there. How about the $19 billion in the energy bill in subsidies to the oil industry in the hope that they will take money, borrowed by the taxpayers, given to them to go out and explore? Of course, those same oil company execs, of course they were not under oath, I have got to admit that, said that that money, the head of Exxon said it is nothing, it is chump change, and it has no effect on our operations. So maybe we could take back that $19 billion and spend it on lunch for hungry kids or maybe we could put the money back into the student loan program that you want to cut out in the reconciliation bill. Then we have a few tax giveaways out there, offshore companies like Accenture, largest homeland security contractor in the history of the United States, $10 billion, who has moved their headquarters to the Bahamas so they will not pay any taxes in the United States of America, but they are going to defend us against foreign enemies, but they just do not want to pay any taxes here. I would like to be defended against them and those giveaways.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I would schedule some up-or-down votes on these sorts of major cuts in a much expanded reconciliation under an open rule.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I object to borrowing $1.3 billion a day between now and then without any attempt at fiscal restraint.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Last night, the Ways and Means Committee pulled aside the curtain to show us what the direct link is between tax cuts for the wealthy and cutting programs for students and struggling families. Dividend tax cuts for wealthy investors so they will have to pay taxes at a rate lower than a teacher or a supermarket checkout clerk. The trade-off is, well, student loans, $14 billion in cuts. But, hey, those rich coupon clippers need the money. Then we have food security, school lunch. Those little kids are just eating too much. We get something called look-through treatment of payments between related CFCs under foreign personal holding company income rules for the same price. Nice trade-off on the Republican side of the aisle. Then, of course, extending further tax cuts to those who don't work for a living but live on capital gains. The small trade-off for that is depriving millions of Americans under the Medicaid program of needed essential medical care and dumping those costs onto the States and those of us who buy insurance because a lot of it will be un-reimbursed care. Great work, you guys. You're helping out your patrons and sticking it to the rest of America.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. addressed the House. His remarks will appear hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.)

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take the time of the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) since I am next on the list.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, first, I missed the earlier discussion of Chairman Ed Roybal, but I had the privilege of serving with him for a number of years on the Transportation Committee, and he was a wonderful inspiration to a young Member of Congress. I was much younger then, and I learned a good deal during his leadership and would say that he provided a tremendous leadership and a legacy for Californians and all Americans in terms of his investment in transportation infrastructure for America. So my condolences to the family. I rise tonight to discuss the Medicare prescription drug benefit. I went online today to see what seniors would experience. It is fairly extraordinary, mind-boggling, particularly given the fact that a large number of seniors have never experienced the Internet. Seventy-six percent of seniors have never been online. I have. It was still not easy. Twenty-six percent of people on Medicare have cognitive impairments. Some of my detractors on the other side of the aisle might say I have that, but I do not. Three million have visual impairments. I wear corrective lenses. And 2.3 million reside in nursing homes. These are all extraordinary complications for an unbelievably, unnecessarily complicated program. Why was it constructed this way? For two reasons: the pharmaceutical industry and the insurance industry, not the 40 million seniors and others who are eligible for Medicare in this country. The bill was designed by the Republicans to reward their very, very generous contributors in the pharmaceutical and insurance industry. The insurance industry is an industry, of course, which is exempt from antitrust law. It can and does collude to set prices, exclude people and is quite profitable. Then, of course, the pharmaceutical industry is the most consistently profitable industry in the world. They are both given subsidies through this legislation. We could have done something much simpler, much less expensive. This plan will cost $1 trillion over 10 years for the American taxpayers in addition to incredible sums for seniors, particularly those who make wrong choices. In my little survey, 41 plans came up; and in comparing three, it is going to take me all night if I wanted to compare all 41. I keep going back to the screen that only allows three at a time. My annual costs would vary between $2,457 and $5,243; and, of course, the pharmaceutical companies can change the drug benefit weekly. Seniors can change the plan once a year, and you know what will happen if they have large claims during the year and they actually get a benefit? They will be disallowed. They will not be allowed to reenroll in that plan by the private insurance sector next year. There is nothing that requires that they be reenrolled if they are willing to pay the premiums to get the benefits. We could have had the government, like we do with the VA, go out and negotiate the lowest price for prescription drugs for the Nation's 40 million Medicare eligible citizens. That would have saved billions of dollars; but the Republicans said, well, that is unfair, that is anticompetitive. Well, no, actually we are forming a buying group. We are using market power to negotiate lower prices. They say, no, we should give subsidies to the pharmaceutical industry and subsidies to the noncompetitive insurance industry. That is their version of a free market. Of course, again, they are generous campaign contributors so we can understand some of this rhetoric on their side of the aisle. Nonetheless, an incredibly expensive, confusing plan which gives all of the benefit to the pharmaceutical and insurance industry, puts seniors at risk, puts taxpayers at risk, and we could have done so much better for so much less. It would cost nothing to negotiate those lower prices. The VA gets prices at a 70, 75 percent reduction from list price; but, no, the Republicans had a special provision in this bill. Medicare, the default provider for anybody who cannot buy into an insurance plan that is red-lined by the insurance industry, and they can do that legally under this bill, they say, oh, we are not selling you a premium; you have got too many drug claims; we are not going to take you. But they can go to Medicare as a default provider, and guess what? Medicare is the only entity in the world, other than uninsured individuals, who will have to pay list price for drugs. Nobody can afford list price for drugs except the superwealthy and, according to Republicans, Medicare. This will bankrupt the program, but that is where the highest risk seniors, the ones that are not desirable to the industry, will get pushed after maybe 1 year of enrollment, if they are lucky enough to get enrolled in the first year. So huge costs to taxpayers, confusion and risks for seniors, the end of Medicare in the not-too-distant future by bankruptcy, by design, by the Republicans, all to profit the private insurance industry and the pharmaceutical industry. You should be really, really ashamed of this horrible product.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is correct. I only regret that she trained him too well.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honor the many years of service of House Parliamentarian Muftiah McCartin, who completes her excellent work in this body later this week. Ms. McCartin joined the Parliamentarian's Office in 1976, and has served during the tenure of six Speakers and six Presidents. In 1991, she became the first woman to be appointed a Parliamentarian. The minority leader, Ms. Pelosi, is someone who understands the importance of breaking glass ceilings. She had hoped to be here personally to congratulate Muftiah on her outstanding work and her dedication over the many years. She goes on to say Muftiah always had such a wonderful smile and warm demeanor on the House floor, which I might comment often lacks smiles and warm demeanors. Well, it is warm; sometimes heated. As we know, it can get heated in debate and very partisan, but she has always been a calm and rational presence to Members on both sides of the aisle and their staff who seek parliamentary advice. She brought a keen mind and a clear understanding of House rules that have served this institution very well. In addition to the long, grueling hours she has spent on the House floor, she has managed to raise four wonderful children: Marissa, Elaine, Sandra, and Luke, one of whom has the great, good sense to have moved to my congressional district. That is my district, not Ms. Pelosi's. I am sure she will welcome spending the extra time with her family and her husband, Terry. Muftiah, today we thank you for your service to this great institution and wish you the very best. You have been a tremendous asset to the work we do every day, and we will miss you. Thank you again for your many years of commitment toward making the House of Representatives a better place.

Mr. DeFAZIO. I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. The Republican reconciliation bill, pretending to finally bring a sense of fiscal responsibility to that side of the aisle, having increased our debt by 62 percent in 5 years, actually is bleeding middle-income families, kids who want to get a higher education, $14 billion out of student loans. Those youngsters in the elementary schools are eating too much. Cut student lunches for those kids. Foster care, the family values side, long-term care for seniors. Why are they cutting all that? So they can bleed the poor and the middle class in this country. And then as they create this giant sea of red ink, they will float the yachts of the wealthy on it by giving them $70 billion in tax breaks, actually increasing the deficit, having already stuck it to the middle class and struggling families. They are going to increase the deficit in order to finance tax cuts for people who earn over $300,000 a year so their yachts can be a little bigger and float a little higher. They should be ashamed of what they are doing to America and what they are doing to middle-income and struggling families.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a new-found sense of fiscal responsibility on the Republican majority side of the aisle. There should be. Last year, the fiscal year was a record deficit, nearly $600 billion. Not only did the United States of America borrow over $400 billion from investors, and a great deal from China and other foreign interests, they also borrowed the entire Social Security trust fund surplus for the year, about $180 billion, money that was intended to pay for future benefits for Social Security retirees to ensure that those benefits would be there to pay for the looming retirement of the baby boomers. Mr. Speaker, $180 billion extracted only from people who earn salary and wages and earn less than $90,000 a year was borrowed and spent. Some of it was spent to give tax refunds to profitable corporations, some of it was spent to give huge new tax breaks to people who earn over $300,000, and some of it was spent on other Federal Government purposes. Now, they are projecting that the first quarter next year, we will borrow more money in one quarter than any quarter in the history of the United States of America. So they maybe should get some new-found fiscal responsibility on that side of the aisle. They have raised the Federal debt by 62 percent in 5 short years. George Bush has more than doubled the Federal debt in 5 short years. Now, Dick Cheney, the Vice President, of course says deficits do not matter, but I think they do, and I think the American people know they do. They know they cannot spend more money than they know they have in income every month forever. They know they cannot continuously borrow money on their credit cards or from the bank. Likewise, the United States of America. Now, what are they doing about it. Well, they are bringing up with great fanfare a bill tomorrow called the reconciliation bill, $53.9 billion of supposed new income or cuts and programs. There are some real cuts. There are real cuts that will hit hard at middle-income and struggling families. The biggest cuts are to the student loan programs, $14.3 billion, adding about 6,000 bucks to the average kid's public school 4-year cost with new interest charges and up-front charges. Cuts in foster care, cuts in long-term care. This is the family values side of the aisle over here, they like to claim, remember. And many other vital Federal programs. And then they are assuming some phony revenues, 50 times as much per acre to lease out the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge with unknown reserves, as we just got a few months ago for the naval petroleum reserve with known reserve closer to the pipeline. So phony baloney and mean cuts. But that is not even the end of the story. They are going to follow these mean cuts and the phony baloney with $70 billion in real cuts to the richest among us, predominantly weighted toward those who earn over $300,000 a year, particularly toward those who earn over a $1.2 million a year. They are averaging $120,000 a year in tax cuts now. Under their proposal, it will be even more generous, and that is because those wealthy people, also their contributors, are going to trickle down on the rest of us and bring new prosperity to America and wipe out the deficits with that new prosperity. After all, when we wax their yachts, when we cut their lawns, when we do other things that they will employ us to do when they are not spending the money overseas or on luxury items produced overseas that will bring jobs to America. As they say famously on that side, they never saw a poor person give anybody a job. No, those poor people are doing the work and paying taxes, unlike the rich people who they are favoring and showering money upon, and they are borrowing money and taking money from programs that are important to middle-income and poor people to give to the rich people. Trickle down economics. And in the end, guess what? They are actually going to increase the debt of the United States and the deficit because they are going to cut taxes for rich people by $70 billion. They are going to assume some phony baloney and make mean cuts against middle- income and working families for $54 billion. They are going to increase the deficit by $16 billion although they claim that is not true because the rich people are going to trickle on us and that will create more revenue than the $16 billion of new deficit that is created. You might think it is April Fools, but it is not. It is just another move by the arrogant majority, thinking that America is not watching. Well, I think America is beginning to pay attention; and I urge my colleagues to oppose this mean-spirited, short-sighted legislation. Assume real fiscal responsibility, reimpose tax fairness for this country, and let us give a fair deal to the American people.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, this is the week upon which the Nation will solemnly recognize the holiday known as Veterans Day, a day out of the year when we should pause to recognize the sacrifice of those 25 million who have served our Nation and the 2.2 million people serving today in uniform, many on the front lines in Iraq, Afghanistan, or in other hot spots around the world. This is not the only day in which we should recognize the sacrifice that those who have served in the past have given or the current sacrifice of the veterans and the active-duty military and their families, but we should do that every day. And the way Congress could do that best would be to assure veterans that the United States Government will keep its promises, promises that were made to them and their families at the time of enlistment. Unfortunately, we have fallen short. Until this year the administration had consistently underfunded veterans' benefits, and in fact, even earlier this year the President's proposed budget would have claimed a substantial increase in health care funding for veterans, but actually would have done that by taxing veterans with a $250 enrollment fee for 2.2 million veterans and doubling the prescription drug copayment. It was not too many years ago that we had no required copayment for veterans. We should return to that time for vets in need. These are quotes from the Veterans of Foreign Wars; since we do not want this to be a partisan issue, let us quote from a nonpartisan group about the President's budget: ``This budget will cause veterans health care to be delayed and may result in the return of 6-month-long waiting periods. That is especially shameful during a time of war.'' This is from the VFW, February 7, 2005. ``The message that this budget communicates is that part of the Federal Government deficit will be balanced on the back of military veterans,'' he said, ``because it's clear that the proper funding of veterans health care and other programs is not an administration policy.'' Again, a quote from the VFW. The American Legion, same day: `` `This is not acceptable,' said Thomas P. Cadmus, national commander. ``It's nothing more than a health care tax designed to increase revenue at the expense of veterans who served their country.'' He went on to say that during his visits to VA hospitals, he had not run into Bill Gates, Donald Trump, or Ross Perot seeking care. He sees mostly veterans, many on small fixed incomes, trying to make ends meet and exercising their very best health care option, Cadmus observed. ``No active-duty servicemember 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 constituent.'' Again, the commander of the American Legion. Why is the Republican-led Congress not listening to that? This week they are going to struggle mightily to cut programs important to middle-income families, student loans and other programs. Then, in the near future, they are going to struggle mightily to pass $70 billion of new tax cuts for people who earn over $300,000 a year. But are they going to struggle or are they even going to allow a vote here on the floor of the House of Representatives on H.R. 515, the Assured Funding for Veterans Health Care Act? There is no better way that the elected Representatives could celebrate Veterans Day here in the United States than by bringing up and passing this legislation that would, for all future budgets, assure that there would be adequate funding for veterans. They are already threatening a 2 percent across-the-board cut on that side of the aisle after they do the tax cuts for the rich people, because then we will be having to increase the size of the deficit despite the cuts to middle- and low-income programs, and that, of course, would hit hard again on veterans' programs. We need assurances that that is not going to happen again. We need to properly recognize their service. The pay raises for Members of Congress, those are going forward in the House, although I oppose them. But somehow we cannot get the additional funding and the assured funding we need for our Nation's veterans. Please, to the leadership, my Republican colleagues, and those on my side of the aisle, let us not just go home and march in the parades and tell people we are with the veterans. Let us demonstrate that with a vote of support on assured funding, mandatory funding, for every future budget year so that we will not go through these future struggles. I have had too many calls from too many veterans to my district office where we have tried to help them get in for critically needed care because of the extraordinary waiting lists in my part of the country, and I know that is not unique. We have got to do away with those waiting lists and deliver on the promises we have made. Happy Veterans Day.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Republicans hope to jam through a reconciliation the day before Veterans' Day, including $54 billion in cuts. He talked about a helping hand? Doubling the origination fee for student loans, cutting $14 billion in student loans is a helping hand for the next generation of Americans? Cutting foster care, school lunches, Medicaid, not to reduce the budget deficit but to make room for $70 billion of tax cuts for people who earn over $300,000 a year. That is what they are doing. We should reconcile a few things around here. Let us reconcile their hypocrisy. Let us reconcile their purported support for the troops and our vets with the fact that the budget is inadequate to provide promised benefits, and they are doing nothing about that in the budget reconciliation. Let's have some reconciliation and do things that are right for America.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, the Sunday Washington Post had an extraordinary story as a result of investigative journalism. The FBI has issued 30,000 national security letters. Now, we will have to back up for a moment to understand what that means. Four years ago, this Congress was stampeded under the anthrax attack and 9/11 into passing a bill it had not read, the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act, which contained many unconstitutional and dubious provisions, many bad ideas from past attorneys general, rejected by previous Congresses, passed in a hysterical time for the Congress. Now it is about to be reauthorized, and, in fact, strengthened in many ways. This is one of the most disturbing aspects of that legislation. These national security letters used to be fairly rare. They used to issue about 300 a year. They are now issuing 30,000 a year, a 100-fold increase. This is an extraordinary intrusion into the personal lives of many Americans who are not accused of or even suspected of crimes. As the Post reports, they are issued by FBI field supervisors, local law enforcement FBI agents, not from the national office, no judicial review, no review by the Justice Department, no review by the United States Congress, totally at the discretion of local field supervisors. In fact, the Bush Administration has defeated legislation and a lawsuit to require a public accounting, and they have offered no example, not one, 30,000 a year, and they do not have one example of a national security letter impeding a terrorist attack or actually apprehending a terrorist. Well, they did apprehend a guy in Portland, Oregon and they did use national security letters. Unfortunately, he was innocent. They were wrong. As far as we know, it has been used once to apprehend someone and now the government is at risk of paying substantial damages for that false arrest. We do not know of any successful uses. The Bush Administration is defending this. Now they are going to deposit all the information acquired in these massive sweeps of all citizens' credit card records, phone calls, e-mails, everything that relates to who they talk to, who they see, where they go, what they buy, and they are going to put it into government data banks. But don't worry. Don't worry. They are going to share those private records only with, they say, other Federal agencies, State, local, tribal governments, and appropriate private sector entities. Americans who have had their most intimate lives swept up because of a letter written by a local field supervisor, by the FBI, are now going to have all of that data placed into a data bank, which will be restricted to Federal, State, local, tribal governments and appropriate private sector entities. Maybe your next-door neighbor, too, if they are really nosey. This is an extraordinary, unwarranted intrusion into the lives of Americans. They cannot even properly analyze and use the data they have. They had the threads of the terrorist attack between the CIA, the FBI and others, they knew a number of these people were in the country illegally, but they could not be bothered to go out and apprehend them or monitor them. Now they are just gathering up data wholesale on the American people. They are going to share it with other Federal agencies, put it in a private data bank, share it with other forms of government, share it with Native American tribes, for some reason, and appropriate private sector entities. Who are the appropriate private sector entities? Those who could make money off it? I don't know. This is an unbelievable intrusion into personal lives. If you get one of these letters, and you are in a position to give away someone else's data, if you administer a database for your company or for a credit card company or for a library or a bookstore and you get one of these letters, the new PATRIOT Act is going to say if you tell anybody that you got one of these letters, and you provided indiscriminately massive amounts of data on innocent Americans, you would be a felon if you had told anybody that you had gotten such a letter and you had violated their privacy in that way. Then, of course, again, the data will be then taken, put into a database, and shared widely with other governments and appropriate private sector entities. It is unbelievable what this administration is doing to shred our privacy and constitutional rights.

Mr. DeFAZIO

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think some of the statistics that have been spoken here on the floor do bear repeating because they are not widely known either in the medical community or among the citizenry of our country. Ovarian cancer is more common than many believe. One out of 57 women will have an occurrence. It is expected that 22,200 will be diagnosed with the disease this year, again, something that is not widely known, near epidemic proportions here. It is, as those speakers who preceded me have said, difficult to diagnose because of subtle symptoms, and they can be confused with other diseases. It is key that we better inform the medical community, key that we begin to invest more money in research toward a test which could more reliably detect the cancer; and if we are successful there, we will dramatically increase survival rates. Early detection causes a dramatic chance in a woman's minimum 5-year survival possibility. It is key that we invest in those areas, and we are not. Ovarian cancer is rather dramatically underfunded relative to its high mortality rate. In 2004, the National Cancer Institute allocated only about 20 percent as much funding to ovarian cancer research as to breast cancer research, not that breast cancer should be minimized, but I think we should be investing more in both for humane purposes and for avoiding huge medical costs and complications as these diseases progress to more serious stages. Unfortunately, there was only about a third as much as was allocated to prostate cancer, again, not that we should reduce prostate cancer research, but we should increase ovarian cancer research and the others. These are investments we are making in the health and well-being of the American people. They ultimately will be not only lifesaving, but cost saving. They are good investments to make, even in tough economic and budgetary times. So I am hopeful that the passage of this resolution will lead not only to more education among our populace, but more education in the medical community, better diagnostic tools and more money invested in research. To paraphrase former Vice President Gore, this is not just a women's disease. Everyone has a grandmother or a mother. It is someone's spouse or sister or aunt or friend who are afflicted by this disease, and in that we all cannot feel their pain, but we understand how life changing or how horrible this disease can be for the individuals and for their families. With that, I urge my colleagues to urge the resolution, and in the near future to support increases in funding for finding better ways to detect and cure this disease. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).