[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 87 (Tuesday, June 22, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H4746-H4752]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gerlach). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure once again to 
address the U.S. House of Representatives and the American people and 
also Members of the Congress. I just want to first say that as my 
colleagues know, every week, the 30-Something Working Group, under the 
leadership of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the 
Democratic leader, we come to the floor to address the House and the 
American people to share with them what is going on that is good for 
young people in America, young working people and families, and also 
what is not going so well, and come with not only constructive ways 
that we can make things better for Americans throughout this great 
country of ours, but also make sure that we point out issues that may 
harm them in the future or that will harm them.
  Tonight, we have the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. 
Sanchez) and also the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), who are my 
partners in this effort. I would be remiss if I did not, number one, 
say that it is a pleasure being here with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Ryan) again. One more week, we made it, another week in America, and 
also the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), who is 
from the great State of California and who has so much to contribute to 
our dialogue.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I think 
today, with the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. Sanchez), 
there is a lot more class in this Chamber with her here as opposed to 
just the gentleman from Florida and me.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, there are a number of Americans who 
are just holding on to their clicker right now to hear exactly what she 
has to say and how she says it. I know that the gentlewoman from 
California has another engagement, and we definitely want to hear from 
her.
  First, I want to just share a few things as an update real quick. We 
still have the voter suppression issue that is alive and well in 
America. We have been getting the vote out through the Rock the Vote 
effort and also a lot of other folks who are out there, making things 
happen, sharing with young people who are going to be on college 
campuses this fall, that they can register where they are going to 
school, whether it be community college or wherever. So we ask them to 
go do Rock the Vote because we still have a problem with supervisors 
telling people even in summer terms that they cannot register.
  Once again, in 1975, the Supreme Court spoke to that issue saying, 
you can vote when you go to school so that your voice can be heard in 
this upcoming election. We have other issues that we will touch on 
throughout the hour.
  Mr. Speaker, I will now yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Linda T. Sanchez) to please share with us some of the issues that are 
important to her. I know the gentlewoman will talk about some news 
dealing with issues facing young people here in America today.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I would join my 
colleagues a little more often if they

[[Page H4747]]

were not up here so late at night. I know that the gentleman has 
already talked about a number of issues that particularly impact young 
people in this country. I know that I was here when we talked about the 
tuition increases and the rising costs of student loans, the 
increasingly bleak job market for recent graduates. I know that the 
gentleman talked about the voter suppression issue, and tonight I want 
to talk a little bit about the men and women who are putting their 
lives on the line in Iraq and in many places around the globe to 
protect our country.
  Mr. Speaker, we are rapidly coming up to the 4th of July, our 
Independence Day; and I think it is timely to thank the men and women 
who sacrifice themselves on behalf of our country.
  An interesting statistic that I ran across is that 70 percent of the 
people serving in Iraq are ages 18 to 30, and that is obviously a big 
group of young Americans. Unfortunately, while people talk a lot about 
patriotism and about supporting our troops, unfortunately, what we are 
seeing under the current Bush administration is that many of the 
support mechanisms for these men and women, once they come home, are 
being dismantled. So instead of talking and giving just lip service to 
how we should be supporting our troops, we should be passing 
legislation that stops the cuts that the President has proposed, 
especially cuts to VA health care.
  It was not too long ago that I visited, and I have been there on 
several occasions, Walter Reed Medical Center, which is where the 
wounded soldiers come after they are stabilized from the theater in 
Iraq; and I had an opportunity to talk with many young men in the 
amputee ward, some as young as 19, 20, 21, 22, who are going to need 
ongoing health care for their injuries. They are going to need job 
retraining because the jobs that they are going back to they cannot 
hold anymore. And, unfortunately, what we have seen this government do 
is cut benefits to VA programs, especially the health care programs, at 
a time when out of the other side of their mouth, they are saying we 
need to support our troops.
  So I find that there is a level of hypocrisy in what the Bush 
administration says and actually what they are doing. I tell people all 
the time, the measure of our patriotism is not just about rah, rah, and 
cheering the troops while they are in war, in theater; but it is how do 
we treat those same men and women once they come home and they need us. 
Unfortunately, we are seeing that this administration is bent on cuts 
to VA services. Veterans who have fought some of their toughest battles 
for this country on foreign soil then come back to fight the 
bureaucracy of the VA health care system and face ever-increasing 
delays to be seen by doctors, closing of facilities and consolidation, 
which means that they have to travel many, many more miles just to go 
and get the basic services that they are entitled to.
  I just want to note, before I engage my two other colleagues here 
this evening in discussion, that even VA Secretary Anthony Principi 
publicly acknowledged that he tried in vain to secure more funding from 
this administration. So what kind of priorities does this 
administration have if they cannot meet the funding request of the VA 
Secretary who was hand-picked by President Bush? Mr. Principi is 
someone the President picked, but he is also a veteran. So he could not 
keep quiet about how egregiously low the funding level is for the VA 
administration.
  So I think it is timely that young people know that we are asking 
them to make a great sacrifice in risking their health and their lives 
overseas; they are being divided from their families and, again, they 
are coming back to an administration that is saying they support the 
troops when, in fact, the services and the follow-up care that they are 
going to need is being cut while they are away.
  I do not know what my colleagues think about that, but I yield.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we talk 
about and put ourselves in the shoes of these veterans who are going to 
be coming back, and one of the issues that they are going to be dealing 
with is their veterans benefits, which the gentlewoman has talked 
about.
  Secretary Principi is saying they need another $1.5 billion. The 
House budget, both Democrats and Republicans, for the most part, on the 
committee have agreed that we need another 2.5 or $3 billion more for 
the veterans to meet their needs. And I think it is important to 
understand that what we hear from the administration is that we have 
increased funding for veterans, the Veterans Administration by ex-fold 
or whatever the percentage points they want to cite, and that is great; 
but the problem is we have thousands and thousands more veterans 
accessing the system, so although we are putting more money into it, it 
is not addressing the demand of the people going into the system.
  I know in northeast Ohio we have a large concentration of veterans. I 
think I have 73,000 veterans in my district out of a 700,000-person 
district; that is almost a sixth of who we represent, and the reason 
is, the steel mills close down, you lose your pension, you lose your 
health care, you do not have anywhere to turn, you never utilized the 
VA system, but because of the drastic downturn in the economy and the 
weeding out of manufacturing, you are having a lot of these people 
enter the system.
  So the gentlewoman's point is very well taken, and I think it is 
something that needs to be addressed and it is an issue that, again, it 
is easy for us to say here, but these veterans save this capitalistic 
system. These veterans save the democratic system. And there would be 
no one generating wealth, there would not be CEOs making however many 
times, 300 times as much as the average worker if the system was not 
saved by these heroic veterans.

                              {time}  2015

  So I think it is important for us to know that this system that we 
have that is generating all this wealth would not exist if it were not 
for the veterans. So I think we have some obligation some 
responsibility to make sure that we provide them with the health care, 
the benefits, and everything else that they need.
  I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I was really appreciating the 
dialogue here. I know I am not a veteran myself, being from the State 
of Florida, I can tell that we have a number of veterans, very 
patriotic veterans that are very concerned from St. Petersburg to the 
Panhandle, to Miami, Florida, we have a VA hospital where veterans just 
need to see the ophthalmologist and it takes 6 months for them to see 
him.
  Meanwhile, World War II dedication, remembrance of D-Day, politicians 
falling all over themselves wearing flags talking about we love you, we 
love you, trying to get in a photo op with these patriots, even 
patriots of past wars whether it be Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War I, out 
there trying to take a picture on these Memorial Days and Veterans 
Days, but the real issue is this: How do we treat them outside of 
Veterans Day and Memorial Day? That is the real issue.
  The real issue is when the rubber meets the road and the reality 
after each one of those holidays they still have long lines and they 
still have inadequate and underfunded VA centers.
  So when we look at the credibility of United States and our efforts, 
I will tell my colleagues for all of us here who care so much about our 
troops, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) knows today in the 
Committee on Armed Services that it is not a question about do we love 
and appreciate the troops' commitment to the sovereignty and the United 
States and our friends abroad, that is not a question, I mean, will the 
troops fight for 20 years? They will fight for 20 years if they have to 
fight on the behalf of the United States and our reputation. But it is 
the management of not only the country, but also VA services that we 
will go into in a minute, and also what is going on in Iraq right now.
  And I must say that for every turn this Congress has given this 
administration credit when credit was not due, but on behalf of the 
efforts that were in and people that we have in forward areas 
throughout the world, especially in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is just so 
very, very important that we bring point to this.
  If I can, my colleagues, I always read the paper. I know that there 
are some people who said they do not read the

[[Page H4748]]

paper, but I will leave that alone. We know who that individual is. But 
this is the Dallas Morning News. ``Iraq Trust Gap.'' And this editorial 
is from this paper. And I must say that the President is from Texas, 
right?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I think so.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Allegedly.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Dallas is in Texas. I want to make sure. I am 
from Florida so I want to make sure I have it right.
  They are saying, ``You have got a credibility problem, Mr. 
President.'' Now, this is the hometown paper in a home State that is 
saying that there is an issue. It goes on in this editorial.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Before we get into this, because we, being on the 
Committee on Armed Services, we talk about this all the time. This 
seems to be like every conversation you have on the floor and off the 
floor somehow gets back to the war, somehow gets back to this 
administration's march to war.
  I just want to be clear with the American people, this is not 
personal. This is not us trying to demagog an issue for political gain. 
We have 800 soldiers who have been killed. We have thousands of 
soldiers who have been wounded. We have had hundreds, if not thousands, 
of innocent Iraqis killed because of this.
  This is a distinction that my colleagues and I have to make because 
we are elected Members. My colleague represents 700,000, my other 
colleague represents 700,000 and I represent 700,000 citizens of this 
country who want to know why we are in the predicament we are in. This 
is not personal with the President. I am sure we would all say he is an 
affable man who we all would probably sit down and have a Diet Coke or 
a cup of coffee with and completely enjoy the time together.
  But, we have an obligation, a constitutional obligation because this 
Chamber, Article 1, section 1 of the Constitution says the people 
govern, not the administration, not the executive branch. The 
legislative branch, everything starts here in the House.
  This is why we are bringing this up. This is why my colleagues and I 
are going to have this discussion because we have a responsibility to 
question the leadership of this country, a constitutional obligation 
that when we stood here a year and a half ago, we put our hands up and 
said, ``I do,'' ``I will.''
  So I did not mean to interrupt my colleague, but I think it is 
important that we lay this out before we have this discussion to say 
this is not personal. This is about the policies of this administration 
that we questioned initially, our voices were not heard. The press 
tried to question early, they were shut out. And now we are in a 
situation where we have not been given all the facts.
  So I am sorry to interrupt my colleague, but I wanted to lay that out 
before we got moving here.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ryan) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T. 
Sanchez) this is important that the American people understand this is 
not the Ryan-Meek-Sanchez report, but this is the Dallas Morning News. 
I do not sit on that editorial board.
  What has happened here as it relates to this editorial, it is saying, 
``Mr. President, we backed you for President of the United States, we 
backed your decision to do certain things in this country.'' But I will 
tell my colleague as it relates to other people in this democracy like 
the 9/11 Commission, that is made up of Democrats and Republicans, 
okay, that have said there is no link between al Qaeda and Saddam 
Hussein, and you are saying yes, there is, as it relates to the war, 
the preemptive strike that we took in Iraq when we keep changing the 
reason why we went into Iraq, there is an issue there.
  So that is the reason why 76 percent of the American people feel that 
we were receiving too many casualties in Iraq. I must say to the 
families to the four Marines that lost their lives within the last 24 
hours that my heart goes out to them. And every Member of this 
Congress, Democrat and Republican, appreciate their service. But it 
comes down to the management of the war and also the management of the 
country.
  We cannot separate ourselves like a quarterback to a receiver when it 
comes down to bad news from the war saying, well, whatever they want on 
the ground we are going to give them, but otherwise you are telling 
them what they are going to have. Do not separate yourself on those 
issues coming up.
  And I will tell my colleague what is so very, very important as it 
relates to credibility, as it relates to veterans affairs, as it 
relates to a real health care plan, as it relates to reducing the 
deficit, there are a lot of people saying, oh, we are going to take the 
deficit down but we are having to have action here on Thursday that 
will separate the boys from the men and the girls from the women when 
it comes down to the vote of who really cares about the growing deficit 
in this country.
  I pull no punches when it comes down to what happens in the 
management of this war, how we approach June 30 and beyond. We have a 
question of command, who is going to be in charge afterwards of 
American troops and what happens with their safety. It also comes down 
to the issue of how long we are going to be there? How are we going to 
bring other world leaders into it? When one has a G-8 summit with the 
hopes of hopefully someone will say, hey, we are sending more troops 
and that does not happen, something is wrong.
  So it means that 135,000, 137,000 troops in theater right now are 
going to be in theater for some time to come with really with us 
saying, well, there will be elections in December. I say to my 
colleague from California we cannot even have elections in Afghanistan. 
Okay. I am not belittling Afghanistan, but Iraq and Afghanistan are two 
different issues.
  The war against terror, I will tell you this, if we cannot have 
elections that we are postponing for the second time, Secretary 
Wolfowitz of the Secretary of Defense, he said the U.N. was not able to 
register folks. I wonder why the U.N. is not able to register. It is a 
safety issue in Afghanistan. There is a safety issue in Iraq.

  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman yield? That brings 
up the whole point that I have been trying to make for months now. And 
I am going to continue to make it until somebody hears me or maybe we 
could figure out why we did this the wrong way.
  Today in our Committee on Armed Services, Secretary Wolfowitz said we 
went to Iraq because there was a connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam 
Hussein. And he said we went because Iraq was harboring terrorists from 
al-Qaeda. And we went because Iraq was funding terrorists. Connection, 
harboring terrorists, and funding terrorists were the three reasons 
throughout the committee, we were there about three hours today, that 
the Secretary gave.
  There was an article today in the Houston Chronicle, it said, 
verbatim, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia harbored al-Qaeda, funded al-Qaeda, 
and they were connected to al-Qaeda, more so than Iraq. So the 
dangerous thing that we need to talk about if this is the standard, if 
you have been connected, harbored, or funded terrorist organizations, 
the United States or some other country could now go to war with this 
country.
  So we should be in Pakistan, we should be in Saudi Arabia, we should 
be in Iran, we should probably be in Sudan where bin Laden met 
supposedly with the Iraqi official. When does this end? When does this 
end?
  We have pulled our troops out of Afghanistan, we have 130,000 in 
Iraq. We have 10,000 in Afghanistan. Why cannot we have elections in 
Afghanistan? We do not have the security. They are all in Iraq.
  Why is poppy now half of the GDP in Afghanistan? Because we do not 
have enough troops on the ground in there. And they said we wanted to 
set up a democracy in the Middle East? Why did we not do it? We were 
already in Afghanistan if we wanted to set up a democracy in that area 
of the world.
  And it is very frustrating, and I think the ultimate issue that we 
have talked about many, many times, I say to my colleague from Florida, 
is that when we asked this administration what the deal was with the 
poppy, 70 percent of the worlds's poppy which turns into heroin, is 
converted into heroin, is from Afghanistan.
  And when we asked this administration what they were doing about the

[[Page H4749]]

drug problem in Afghanistan, the $2\1/2\ billion that is coming out of 
there, that is going right to al-Qaeda, that is going to continue their 
terrorist acts, direct funding, drugs on the market in the United 
States and elsewhere, mostly in Europe, to al-Qaeda to fund terrorists, 
we asked what are you doing about the drugs, the poppy this year? And 
the answer was, ``We missed it.'' ``The harvest came in early and we 
missed it.'' I want to repeat that. The harvest of poppy came in early 
in Afghanistan and we missed it. And so it has already been harvested 
and it is already on the market being converted into heroin on the 
market now.
  So there will be 365 days worth of funding of al-Qaeda from the drugs 
that are grown in Afghanistan. And there is one reason why that 
happened: We do not have enough troops on the ground in Afghanistan. We 
have 10,000 or 11,000 there. We have 130,000 in Iraq.
  Imagine if we would have spent just half of what we spent in Iraq and 
had half the troops that we have in Iraq in Afghanistan where bin Laden 
came from, what the situation would be. We would have a democracy in 
the Middle East, we would have taken care of our drug problem, and we 
would have elections that would not have to keep getting postponed.
  I am sorry to talk so much but that is so frustrating to me. I cannot 
figure out why we did what we did when we did not have our problems 
fixed in Afghanistan.
  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to mention 
one thing in the hearing, you talk about the testimony in the Committee 
on Armed Services. It just further illustrates how unfair of a burden 
we really are delegating to, again, these young men and women who are 
going overseas with the best of intentions. They want to serve their 
country well. They want to do the right thing. They are doing their job 
under very difficult circumstances and to the best of their abilities. 
But their leadership at the top is failing them.
  It is making the situation such that they are going to have to stay 
for longer and longer periods of time. They will have to endure 
worsening conditions and continuing instability. And these are folks 
that are proud Americans that want to serve this country. And, again, 
their leadership from our President is failing them.
  I just think it is such a tragedy because we are asking these young 
people to take the brunt of the risk. And when they come back stateside 
and, hopefully, they come back safely, the way that this administration 
is thanking them for taking that risk is unbelievable.
  I want to talk about one brief issue before I have to run, and that 
is called concurrent receipt. We like to call it the veterans tax or 
the disabled veterans tax. And what that is is people who have served 
in the military who have earned a military pension and they are injured 
in combat and they are receiving disability pay, they have their 
pension payment deducted by whatever amount they are receiving in 
disability.
  So they are not receiving their disability payment and their pension 
payment as they should. Because they are meant to do two different 
things: Disability payments are meant to compensate and help people who 
have been injured and suffered disabilities from fighting.

                              {time}  2030

  A pension was meant to give them a cushion for retirement. They are 
actually deducting the disability payment from the pension payment so 
the person gets one amount of money when they should actually be 
getting both concurrently; and I know that there are Democrats in this 
body who have been fighting like hell, and pardon my French, to try to 
eliminate this disabled veterans tax, and we have met full on 
resistance from the other side of the aisle and the Bush 
administration.
  I think that doing that to veterans who, again, have sacrificed much, 
have been honored for their work on the battlefield, is just a 
hypocrisy, and it is like slamming the door in their face after they 
have taken the brunt of the risk; and, again, it is a failure of 
leadership, things like the GI bill that were intended to help veterans 
come back and reestablish their lives by helping them fund a college 
education.
  Today is actually the 60th anniversary of the GI bill. We have seen 
the GI bill pretty much gutted to what it initially was so that even 
with the GI bill help, many kids coming back from theater having served 
overseas in combat just do not have the kind of benefits they do to 
pick up their lives and move on with a college education and try to 
move into other fields.
  Again, I just think it is shameful that this administration is 
failing our young people in such a way.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman from California 
(Ms. Linda T. Sanchez) is 110 percent right as it relates to what our 
commitment should be to these men and women that are putting their 
lives on the line; and after every young person that walks into a 
recruitment office to offer themselves as patriots to the country, that 
is the least they deserve is to be able to at least get 80 percent of 
what they were promised.
  Right now, they are not getting that; and what is so very, very 
unfortunate with the growing deficit that is taking place in this 
Congress, and this is the reason why I take the opportunity along with 
you and others like the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) to make sure 
that we give voice to the growing deficit and the lack of commitment to 
our veterans of what we know will be adequate and strong health care in 
this country, providing them with that.
  We have veterans that are close to 100 years old that are out there 
who have needs; and we also, from the statistic that the gentlewoman 
gave earlier, 70 percent of the individuals that are in Iraq right now 
and Afghanistan, they range from the age 18 to 30. So now we are 
talking about fathers and mothers with young children that hopefully 
their commitment to our country will mean that the country that they 
defended and stood under the flag for, some of these individuals came 
back without a leg or an arm or years that they can ever pay their 
families back, the anguish that their families have to go through when 
they hear about troops that were killed or a roadside bomb that went 
off, and they have to hold their breath and shudder when the doorbell 
rings because it could be someone from the armed services to share with 
them that Mom's not coming home or Dad's not coming home.
  The least that we can do is follow up on our commitment; and I think 
bring that kind of not only tender, loving care but oversight to this 
Congress, that our Democratic leader, our whip and others, those of us 
on this side of the aisle, even though we have good Republicans that 
want to do these things for veterans. As you know, some of the bills 
that we pass here, it takes some Republican votes, but to be able to 
bring the kinds of leadership that is going to be ready to attack this 
issue and say, veterans, you put it on the line for us, we are going to 
follow through on what we told you, you are going to be respected even 
when you hang up the uniform, we are going to keep your honor 
throughout the wars that you fought in the past and the one you just 
fought and the time that you spent serving this country on our call. We 
are going to do everything we can to help you.
  You know something, that is not Democrat, Republican, Independent, 
Green Party. It is not really north, south, east, west. If you put it 
on the line, citizen or noncitizen I must add, if you put it on the 
line for this country, the least that we can do is do what we said we 
are going to do for you, and you should not have to worry and should 
not have to come marching up like the VFW and many others saying, 
please, please, Congress, do not have us waiting 8 months now, because 
we are already waiting 6.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, there is 
going to be a great opportunity this week for us in the House of 
Representatives, and I hope the people at home pay very close attention 
to this.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the 
Committee on Appropriations, great guy, will have an amendment this 
week that will repeal a portion of the tax cut for millionaires, people 
who make $1 million a year or more. They will still get a tax cut, but 
it will be repealed partially. That money will go to fund veterans and 
will go to fund homeland security, two major issues that we have talked 
about in this Congress over

[[Page H4750]]

the last year and a half that are underfunded. The homeland security is 
very important because we are only checking one or two of all ships 
that come into ports in this country. We do not have enough first 
responders in this country, and we do not have enough border patrol. We 
do not have enough Coast Guard. All underfunded.
  So this is going to be a clear message to the American people. Is 
this Congress going to support people who make over $1 million a year 
and say they have to have their tax cut regardless of what any of the 
other challenges are in this country, or are we going to be responsible 
and we are going to fund local initiatives that are going to help 
protect people in this country and, in turn, invest in our veterans? I 
think that is a clear distinction to make, and people who make less 
than $1 million are not even going to be affected by this.
  I would think that, again, the point is that without these veterans, 
there is no system where you can generate $1 million a year for 
yourself, and I think it is a clear distinction and it is going to be a 
great vote; and I think it is going to articulate for the American 
people the difference between the two parties. I am sure the other side 
will say, we are raising taxes, and the answer to the American people, 
yes, we are for people who make over $1 million a year. They will see 
an increase.

  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California. Mr. Speaker, excellent point, and 
I am going to have to leave you gentlemen now, but I just wanted to 
commend both of you for your excellent work in trying to bring issues 
to light that impact young adults in America, and I think this topic is 
so very timely, and I urge you to continue your great work on the 
issue.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We thank you. You are marvelous.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. You are part of that solution, and we thank the 
fact that you have joined us on several occasions and you are part of 
us.
  I just want to say quickly that we talk about priorities in America. 
I am so glad on the Democratic side of the aisle, and even some 
Republicans within this process, that we believe in keeping the deficit 
down, not increasing the deficit, not playing games about how we are 
going to decrease it in the future; but this is my credit card and the 
reason why the numbers have not changed is the fact the Congressional 
Budget Office, they are going to have a mid-session review in July, and 
this deficit number is going to change. Unfortunately, it may not 
change for the better, but this is a big number right here, and this is 
the U.S. Treasury and down here you have the Republican Congress. That 
is there.
  I want to share with the American people that the Democrats here in 
this House, we can only do so much to bring the deficit down. We can 
try to build coalitions and try to come up with resolutions, but the 
majority of the House is Republican. The majority of the other body of 
this Congress is Republican. The White House is Republican.
  I must go back to say that in the Dallas Morning News, I wanted to 
read just one segment of this editorial at the beginning so that it is 
important that we have the kind of diverse thinking. You mentioned this 
a couple of weeks ago, how important that we have balance in this 
process to be able to bring about accountability.
  ``A time comes in most administrations when supporters tell the 
President he has a problem. Bob Dole told Ronald Reagan he should worry 
about the deficit. Tip O'Neill,'' who was one of the great Speakers of 
this House, ``told Jimmy Carter he better improve his icy relationship 
with Capitol Hill. And George W. Bush told his father that the White 
House chief of staff John Sununu needed to go.''
  There comes a time that some of us in this process have to voice our 
opinion, and that opinion is based on the American people. My colleague 
is from the State of Ohio, I am from Florida, and the gentlewoman (Ms. 
Linda T. Sanchez) is from California; and I will tell my colleagues 
that as we look at the security of the country, as we look at the 
deficit, and I am going to tell you this honestly, I take no pleasure 
in being a part of the 108th Congress and presiding over the highest 
deficit in the history of the Republic. The 108th Congress, since we 
have had 108 Congresses, and we are a part of it, we have the honor or 
the dishonor to stand over or be in control of the highest deficit in 
the history of the Republic. I would not be able to sleep at night if I 
was calling the shots or the Democrats were calling the shots to be 
able to make the deficit what it is.
  This amendment that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has, who 
is the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations, coming up on 
Thursday will set forth the priorities of this country: that we care 
about our veterans and we care about protecting the homeland, not that 
we care about millionaires, millionaires getting a tax cut on top of a 
tax cut that is permanent.
  The American people need to understand this is not homeland security 
for Democrats. This is homeland security for the Republic. It is not 
veterans benefits for Democrats. This will be veterans benefits for the 
Republic, for men and women that put it on the line, for VA workers, 
many who are veterans, who put it on the line in serving other 
veterans.
  So as we look at this time of patriotism that one may say, then it is 
only appropriate for us to put our money where our mouths are. What Mr. 
Obey is trying to do on Thursday in this great House is to vote on 
trying to do something on behalf of those individuals who have done 
something for us.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And pay for it.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. And pay for it, not increasing this number, not 
increasing this number, but hopefully having this number go down, so 
that we do not have to knock on the bank door of China and say, hey, 
guess what, we need to borrow more money because we need to pay down 
our deficit.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Remember how many years ago when we had the 
Contract with America, one of the main components of that contract was 
that we were going to have a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution, which meant that the budget in the United States had to 
be balanced every year. Everything had to be paid for. You either cut 
spending or you raised taxes, but you pay your bills, and I think there 
is some confusion at home, the debt is the mounting of yearly deficits, 
and it just keeps compounding. So the national debt is about $7 
trillion I think, close to it. The annual deficit now for next year is 
projected to be, I think, $500 billion, close to $500 billion.
  So as you have a growing debt caused by annual deficits, you have to 
go out and borrow money. As the gentleman from Florida said, the 
country loaning us the most money, number one, is Japan. Number two is 
China. We are going to Japan and China to borrow money to pay for these 
deficits that we have so that we can keep giving these tax cuts to 
millionaires. It makes no sense. We are becoming more dependent on 
these other countries because we are borrowing money from them and 
paying interest. So they take the interest that they make on the money 
that they loan us, and they invest it in the manufacturing and 
everything else. So that is a whole other issue that they keep taking 
our money and investing it in that way, too.

                              {time}  2045

  If one wants to go to the home page here, it is www.House.gov/George 
Miller, who is our ranking member on the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce.
  There is a page on his Web site, Issue No. 14. It is called the debt 
burden, and it gives a chart that will show how much American families 
are paying in what we are calling the debt tax. Because we are 
borrowing so much and having to pay interest, we have got to pay more 
on taxes to cover our spending habits, or are generating less revenue 
by giving millionaires tax cuts.
  So there is a little chart on there, and in the year 2004 the 
interest per family of four is $4,392. By 2014, we are going to be 
paying almost $9,000, $8,934.
  So who is raising the taxes now? The facts are the facts, and it 
makes sense that if one goes out and one borrows money for a car and 
has to pay interest on it because it was borrowed, that interest is 
something that one has to pay out of pocket.
  What we are trying to say is repeal a portion of that tax cut for 
millionaires. Increase the child tax credit. Keep the child tax credit. 
Keep the marriage penalty. Remove it and leave it off for married 
couples. If one makes under

[[Page H4751]]

$200,000 or $300,000 a year, none of the benefits that are received 
under the tax cuts over the last few years would be touched at all. You 
are safe. You are going to keep it.
  What we are saying is people who make a million dollars a year or 
more should pay their fair share, because it is going to benefit the 
whole society, and that is why we are here, is it not?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. When we talk about sacrifice and commitment, we 
have to make some tough decisions here in the Congress, and I will say 
that we dodge making those tough decisions constantly when it comes 
down to doing the things that we should be doing. And the good thing 
about our democracy is that we can tolerate one another's opinion, and 
being able to share the truth with the American people is important 
too.
  And in this House we have a Democrat and Republican side, with the 
one independent, and I think it is important that we have the diversity 
of arguments but at the same time speak to all American people about 
the issues that are facing us.
  We were talking about veterans, talked about the deficit, because it 
all intertwines with one another. In the past we have talked about 43 
million Americans without health insurance that are working, I must 
add. We have talked about student fees being at the highest rate that 
they have been in the past history. We have talked about how the 
banking industry is trying to get students out of having the option to 
be able to lock in a low interest rate versus sending them back to a 
veritable interest rate where they will end up paying more in the long 
run.

  But I think it is important for us, and I think this work towards 
force protection in Iraq, that we talk a little bit about the 
management from the Pentagon of this effort in Iraq.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. The guys with the suits.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I will say that the individuals that are wearing 
the shirts and ties, just like I shared today with Secretary Wolfowitz, 
who is the Under Secretary under Donald Rumsfeld, it is something 
fundamentally wrong when the Department of Defense is not handling the 
war in the way that it should be handled.
  And if we have not only Members of the Congress, but members of the 
press that say, hey, you know something? Things are not going all that 
well in Iraq. One may think that everything is good and it is 
productive. We support our troops. We stand with our troops. That is 
not the question. The real question is as it relates to Abu Ghraib and 
other prisoner abuse issues that are out there on how we are managing 
that issue, how we are managing that issue and how the people at the 
top are going to be dealt with who set forth the culture.
  Now, I am not saying that Secretary Rumsfeld was there at Abu Ghraib. 
I am saying that there is policies that have come out of this 
administration that have put a light on interrogation, and it is also 
mismanagement and also a lack of training in a prison that Saddam 
Hussein had in Iraq that was known for abuse and torture.
  Now, for the administration to say we have dealt with that, it is 
over, it is done, next subject, we have to move on to winning the war, 
well, let me say, when it comes down to insurgents and the recruitment 
of insurgents, our lack of attention to that issue is so very, very 
important.
  The first person to go down in this thing was an enlisted man. That 
is interesting. The Pentagon appointed a two-star general to oversee 
the investigation, knowing full well that this two-star general could 
not go above his rank, define wrongdoing anywhere else as it relates to 
the Department of Defense or the chain of command.
  The four-star general in control, General Sanchez, said, well, maybe 
you all need to appoint a four-star. Secretary Brown, I would say 
Secretary Rumsfeld, appointed a four-star. Guess what? Out of the 
Secretary's office to oversee the ongoing investigation into Abu 
Ghraib.
  I think it is important for the American people to understand, it is 
not totally how we feel about the handling of the investigation. It is 
how the world feels, how the handling of the investigation is done, 
because guess what? We cannot do this on our own, and if we are looking 
towards force protection or troop protection, it is important that we 
let the Iraqi people know that we are doing everything we can, no 
matter where it is. At the top or the bottom, we are going to get to 
the top and the bottom of the situation.
  And it is important that on behalf of those troops, those that have 
served, Reservists, National Guard that have now returned, in their 
honor and their respect for our effort in Iraq, we have to make sure 
that not only enlisted men and women take fault for what took place, 
but it is important that individuals up the chain of command also takes 
fault for what has happened. And I will say right now the truth will 
rise to the top, and since we are talking about 18- to 30-year-olds, 70 
percent of the force that is over there, I want to say, we cannot sit 
by and watch these individuals play the Potomac two-step and go around 
the responsibility for what has happened.
  It has happened under his watch, it has happened under Secretary 
Rumsfeld's watch, and I have said it before and I will say it again, 
there comes a point where you, say hey, maybe I have done all that I 
can do for this effort. Maybe I need to allow someone else to do it. 
But come this November, Democrat, Republican, independent, they will 
make the choice if this administration does not make the choice as it 
relates to new leadership and making sure that we get good information 
about this war and making sure that we have good management of this war 
to protect American lives.
  People talk about how Iraqis feel. I care about how Americans feel. 
Seventy some-odd percent of American people feel that we are taking too 
many casualties in Iraq. Seventy some-odd percent of individuals feel 
that decisions that are being made on this war are hurting our image 
throughout the world. We cannot do this on our own.
  I know the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) knows that. But I am not 
pleased. I know many Members of this Congress are not pleased with the 
way things are going. I have said it once before that our troops would 
fight 20 years if they had to fight on behalf of this country. That is 
not a question. Do we support them? You are doggone right we do. But we 
cannot sit here and allow the mismanagement of this war to continue.

  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I think if you ask why there is a lot of 
frustration here, I think there are a lot of reasons for it. If you 
look at what was said before the war and you compare that to what is 
being said now, you will find that nothing of record from what I can 
tell that was said before the war on our reasons for going has been 
true. We were told that Saddam Hussein was somehow tied to 9/11. That 
was not true. We were told that there was an imminent threat from Iraq 
to the United States and the possibility of a mushroom cloud in 
Cincinnati is a real threat. That was not true. They had weapons of 
mass destruction. That was not true. That we would be able to use the 
oil in Iraq to generate revenue and we would not have to pay for the 
war because we would just use the oil and sell it and then that would 
pay the United States back. That has not been true.
  We are up to $200 billion that we have spent. Then comes the issue of 
Halliburton. Was the Vice President, who had strong, strong ties, an 
officer in the company, did he have anything to do with Halliburton 
getting an unbid contract? Right, wrong or indifferent. Some may even 
say, Hey, that is politics. He is the Vice President. He used to work 
there. Let his former company do it. There aren't a whole lot of 
companies that do it. The problem is that for months and months and 
months the Vice President denied, and his office denied, knowing 
anything or having anything to do with the contract.
  We find out last week that Scooter Libby, who is the chief of staff 
of the Vice President, in essence okayed the contract, knew about the 
contract, was familiar with the contract, okayed the contract. Why 
would you lie about that for 6, 8 months when people were trying to 
figure it out? Then we were told that this Abu Ghraib was just an 
isolated incident. We find out later that the Secretary of Defense 
approved of hiding a prisoner from the Red Cross. That seems pretty 
systemic of a problem to me.
  So when we are up here questioning what is going on here, it is not 
like we do not have any reason to do so. I think we have ample 
evidence. As I

[[Page H4752]]

said earlier, I think we have a constitutional obligation to do it. A 
member of my staff has been saying this, Ryan Keating, no one likes to 
be the bad parent. No one likes to be the one who comes in and says, 
You know what, you're grounded. You're not doing this right, to be the 
enforcer. It would be nice to always be nice but someone has got to 
question what is going on here because we are losing lives, we are 
losing people because of these misjudgments. And then this Chalabi who 
gave us all this information on how great the war was going to be, and 
that was another one, we were going to be greeted as liberators, not 
occupiers. We are 800 dead later, most of that happening after we have 
toppled Saddam and the statue was pulled down.
  Now everyone is saying that this Chalabi, well, we never really 
worked with him. We knew him, we talked to him, but we get advice from 
everybody. He was sitting up in the Chamber when the President gave his 
State of the Union address, right behind Mrs. Bush.
  I do not like to be the bad parent. I do not have kids. I am not a 
parent in any sense. But I think the point is well taken that somebody 
has to say, what is going wrong here, and I think there is a growing 
frustration among the American people. It is not just Democrats. It is 
not just Democrats. It is the frustration that I think you see when we 
see the President's hometown newspaper editorializing against him I 
think is a pretty good sign that people better start shooting straight. 
The problem is you cannot put the bullet back in the gun. The bullet is 
out of gun. We have got to make the best of a bad situation and work 
with our soldiers to make sure that we do not lose any more of them 
while they are over there.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, let me correct myself. It is one of 
the home State newspapers in Dallas. I know that the American people 
associate the President with Crawford, Texas. Let me just say very 
quickly that we encourage the e-mails that we have been receiving. The 
gentleman can give our e-mail address out and then I will give another 
e-mail address out, but the gentleman from Ohio can go ahead and do 
that. David Letterman has his Top 10. You have the e-mail. I am going 
to give out this e-mail address so I do not want to take that away from 
the gentleman.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. This is mine. This is my role.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. This is your role.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. You are not going to take it away from me?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. No, sir.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. 30 Something Working Group. Send us an e-mail. 
30SomethingD[email protected]. Send us an e-mail. We would love to 
hear from you. We would love to hear what you have to say. We have to 
continue to have these discussions. Again, as we started, this is not 
personal. We need, you and I hopefully in our own little way, to raise 
the level of debate here to say it is not venomous, it is not 
malicious, it is not personal. We do not mean to personally attack 
anybody, but there are some real policy concerns. In a time of war, I 
think we have even more of a responsibility to do it.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. In closing, I just want to say that our next 30 
Something hour will be on Tuesday, July 6. That is after Independence 
Day which is going to be a festive celebration, I understand, here in 
Washington, D.C. There will be fireworks on the Mall to celebrate our 
independence once again. They can check the Web site which is the 
Democratic Leader Web site, democraticleader.house.gov/30something to 
get that information. I would also like to commend the WWE which is our 
wrestling component here, World Wrestling Entertainment, for their 
voter registration effort of the 18 to 30 demographics.

                          ____________________