[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 87 (Monday, June 27, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H5239-H5243]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     THIRTY-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McHenry). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is 
recognized for half the time until midnight, 44 minutes.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, once again it is an honor to 
address the House, and the 30-Something Working Group would like to 
send our appreciation to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) 
for allowing us to have the time to come to the floor once again to 
talk about issues that are facing everyday Americans.
  The 30-Something Working Group was created in the 108th Congress, 
some 3 years ago, to start talking about issues that focus on young 
people, children and grandchildren, about their future and the 
direction this country is going in. Every 30-Something Working Group 
hour, we talk about issues that we feel that young Americans and 
Americans in general should know about, but we also talk about what 
Democrats are doing that is different than the majority side.
  I celebrate the fact that in this democracy we have an opportunity to 
give our views and opinions as it relates to what is happening and what 
is not happening. I think both are very, very important. For us to 
continue to move in the direction that we moved in since we became the 
United States of America, it is important that we have not only factual 
information to share with the Members and the American people, but to 
make sure that we are consistent.
  Tonight I am joined by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan). We will 
talk about issues that are at the forefront of the debate here in 
Washington, D.C. One is Social Security. Two, we want to continue not 
necessarily in this order to talk about the issues that are facing 
veterans. We have men and women that are in the forward area in Iraq 
and Afghanistan, and many other parts of the world where they are 
fighting terrorism, but at the same time we have to understand the 
responsibility of making sure that we keep our end of the deal as it 
relates to their veterans affairs once they get back.
  We have individuals that have served in past conflicts on behalf of 
this country, that allow us to celebrate the very freedom that we live 
under today. We cannot leave them behind. We cannot forget them, or 
turn our back on them. In many places we will point out where there are 
those in Congress fighting on behalf of veterans, and those in Congress 
who say they are fighting on behalf of veterans, but it is not coming 
out on the other end.
  I want to talk about the Social Security proposal that has been put 
forward by not only the President and some Republican leaders, not only 
in the House but in the other body. I think it is important that the 
American people understand that in Washington, D.C., all you may see 
and hear may not be true. It is also important that we point out those 
inequities because anything that goes toward private accounts, I think 
that the American people need to continue to be very wary of. You can 
dress a private account up and put a fake mustache on it and a wig, but 
it is still privatization of Social Security.
  The bottom line is across the board with both of these proposals, 
Americans will lose benefits if we go into private accounts. Will 
private accounts deal with the Social Security solvency issue? I must 
add that is 47 years away; 100 percent of benefits will still be 
provided to 48 million Americans, those 33 million in retirement, the 
rest who are receiving disability and survivor benefits. It will be 
here. What we are asking for on this side as it relates to the 
Democratic leadership, not only the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi) but also the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the 
Democratic whip, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), our 
chairman, and our vice chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Clyburn), we have not only an ongoing, but are working toward a 
bipartisan approach.
  Mr. Speaker, I must also add there is a discussion going on now, 
there was a press conference last week talking about we have a bill and 
private accounts. It is not as bad as the President's bill, but it is 
starting us off on private accounts. In this same press conference it 
was admitted by the sponsors of the bill this will not deal with the 
solvency of Social Security. I do not know why we are trying to fool 
the American people. I do not know why we are going through this dance 
that we call here in Washington the Potomac two-step, trying to fake 
out the American people.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) and I are going to attempt to 
share not only with the Members that we know exactly what they are 
doing, and we are here, elected by the people from our districts, and 
also representing the people of the United States of America, to make 
sure that they know exactly what is going on.
  Tonight is not about the 30-Something Working Group and what we want 
to talk about. It is factual. It is not the Tim Ryan report or the 
Kendrick Meek report, it is what is happening right now, third-party 
validaters. And we will continue to come to the floor to point out 
factual inequities in what the majority side is talking about. We want 
to make sure that the American people understand the difference, the 
difference between the leadership of veterans, or not; and the 
difference between leadership on behalf of Social Security and making 
sure that we do not leave the present generation and future generations 
behind.
  We talked last week about the issue of the ever-growing deficit. 
Guess what, we are going to have to pay it off, and I do mean all of 
us, some

[[Page H5240]]

$26,000-plus that American people with children, and those unborn, that 
are going to have to pay because of the ever-growing infatuation with 
spending.
  I think it is important that we point this out.
  I want to take a couple of excerpts of what has been said and what 
has not been done.
  For about 6 months the Republicans have talked about, and I would say 
the Republican leadership because I do not like to generalize. There 
are some Republicans who are very uncomfortable with both of these 
proposals. I think it is important that we continue to hold onto those 
individuals who are showing leadership.
  I would also add there are some individuals in the Republican 
leadership that are trying very quietly to share that private accounts 
are not the way to go. We are asking them to go see the wizard, not 
only to get some courage, but to make sure that they stand up to these 
forces that are trying to push private accounts on the American people.
  I have to digress so we can make sure that we all understand, we want 
to break it down. The bottom line is on the Republican side, by the 
rules that are set here in the House of Representatives, the majority 
runs the agenda here in the House. The majority runs the agenda here in 
the House. I am not only talking to Democrats, Republicans, and the one 
Independent we have in this House, that we have a responsibility to 
make sure that we stand up not on behalf of the leader of the 
Republican Conference or Republicans here in the House, but on behalf 
of the individuals who woke up early one Tuesday morning to go vote for 
some leadership. It is time for us to stand up and make that happen.
  We hope in the 30-Something Working Group by the pressure applied 
that two things happen. One, right here and right now, people in the 
leadership positions make the right decision, to make sure that we make 
Social Security solvent and do away with the whole idea of trying to go 
into private accounts.
  Private accounts would only benefit those individuals who are 
involved in the New York Stock Exchange, that care about the $944 
billion that they would be able to prosper from in the next 20 years on 
the backs of everyday working Americans.
  I think it is important that before that happens, in whatever form, 
and I am in no way supporting or encouraging any of the Members of this 
House to try to move in that direction, that we need to make sure that 
Democratic Members who are solid on this issue, and the few Republicans 
who are solid on this issue, that we stick together on behalf of the 
American people. Or we may very well have the American people say, 
fine; I am a Republican or Democrat or Independent, I believe in my 
Social Security and I want it here.
  If you are not a recipient of Social Security, you have a family 
member that is a recipient of Social Security. If you do not have a 
family member that is a recipient of Social Security, you will have a 
family member that will be a recipient of Social Security. That is the 
good thing about America, is that we care about one another. These 
individuals work every day and may hurt themselves on the job, and they 
count on Social Security.
  Mr. Speaker, it is once again an honor to have the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ryan) to share this hour, and also to let the Members of this 
House, to let them know exactly what the truth is.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I think it is important as we start 
tonight and get things rolling here we talk a little bit about what the 
new proposal is. The 30-Something Working Group has taken a step in 
another direction as far as our billboards. We are going to go with 
hand-drawn charts. It is like we are in the locker room during half-
time of the football game.
  I think it is important to know where we end up after the second 
proposal that is circulating around Congress. Democrats have not seen 
one plan yet, but the important thing for the American people to 
understand is the second proposal that is now circulating around 
Congress ends up at the same exact place that the first proposal put 
us.
  So here we have on our little chart here everything broken down. The 
original Bush proposal is on the right, and the new proposal that is 
circulating in Congress is on the left.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) may remember that 
the first proposal was out of the 12-plus percent, 12.4 percent you pay 
into Social Security, half by the employer and half by the employee, 
the Bush proposal was saying that the employee could take up to 4 
percent of that and put it in this side private account. Right out of 
your paycheck, you could give 4 percent and put it into a private 
account. The rest of yours, the 2.2 left from yours and I think the 2.2 
left from the employer, would go into the Social Security trust fund. 
The employer was actually getting a break. They would not have to 
match. So the Wal-Marts of the world would not have to match their 
employees' 4 percent that they put in the private account. So the 
diversion into the side account is what led to the whole shortfall.
  In the second proposal that is now being circulated around Congress, 
it is just a shell game. All they do, instead of allowing someone to 
divert the money right away from their paycheck, you send the whole 
thing to Social Security and then Social Security takes a portion of it 
and puts it into a private account with your name on it. So it is just 
a typical Potomac two-step.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what they are 
doing.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. It is a typical shell game in Washington. All of a 
sudden we have a new proposal. It is all different. The end result is 
the same thing. There is money not going into a trust fund that is 
being diverted into a private account. Here is the kicker. There is 
going to be a tremendous increase in administrative costs for people to 
have to handle this money, and there is going to be a reduction in the 
benefits that people get. That is why we are here every week talking 
about the same issue over and over because we are not going to allow 
any privatization scheme to come through this body that is going to 
reduce the benefits.
  In the first proposal from the paycheck to the private account, the 
rest goes in Social Security. The second proposal, here is the 
paycheck, and everything goes to Social Security and then Social 
Security will then divert it to a private account with your name on it. 
It is just a shell game to try to sell the new proposal. You can put 
lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the Members need to truly 
understand this. We know where we are as Democrats. We are solid on the 
side of the issue of dealing with the solvency of Social Security 
beyond the 48 years it will be solvent, and beyond 80 percent benefits 
that individuals will receive after that.
  The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) and I have been 
working on this issue. We have had town hall meetings on it. Democrats 
have had some 900 town hall meetings throughout the country and will 
continue to have more to make sure that we fight against this issue of 
privatization and make sure that we make sure that Social Security is 
there for future generations.

                              {time}  2245

  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me.
  It is wonderful to be here with the both of them, my two esteemed 
colleagues from the next generation in the United States Congress, and 
I have been able to listen to a little of what they have been saying on 
my way over here.
  A few weeks ago when we were talking about this before the latest 
version of the privatization scheme was put on the table, we were 
talking about how interesting it is that no matter how many times they 
are told no, they still keep coming back with the same concept, just a 
different version. And I know I analogized it is like when I speak to 
my children and they keep asking me and asking me if they can do 
something that I do not think they should do for one reason or another, 
whether it is not responsible or they are not old enough, and they try 
a lot of different versions of the same thing, and the answer is still 
no because I have carefully reviewed what they want to do, as their 
parent, and decided it is not the best timing right now or

[[Page H5241]]

for whatever reason I have concluded it is not a good idea.
  It would be as if one's teenager came to them and said Mom, Dad, I 
really want to go to this party, and I want to stay out until 2 o'clock 
in the morning, and the parent said, no, that is not a good idea, and 
so they come back to them. This new proposal is like if one's teenager 
came back to them and said I still want to go to the party, but I 
promise I will be home by midnight. The whole idea was that they did 
not want them to go to the party in the first place.
  And after 60 days initially on the road trying to sell his 
privatization scheme to the American people and essentially they have 
rejected it and an additional 60-day effort where the more the 
President talks about this, the less people like it, it is mindboggling 
to me. And I am the sort of baby of the group of the three of us, I am 
a freshman, I was just elected. It is mindboggling to me that they do 
not want to come to the table now, as we have been asking them to do, 
and come up with a bipartisan solution.
  Privatization balloons the deficit. It cuts benefits; and yet every 
version of their proposal, the premise of it is to privatize Social 
Security, and that pulls the safety net out from future retirees and, 
quite honestly, from people who are about to retire.
  I actually had an electronic town hall meeting today at 4:30, which 
was amazing. We got tremendous feedback. But can I tell my colleagues 
that not one person who participated, and I had over 100 people 
participate live and 120 people signed on in advance of our beginning, 
and no one said, ``You really need to consider private accounts. We 
really want you to do this.'' I mean, it is time to sit down and put 
privatization aside, and like in 1983 when Tip O'Neill and Ronald 
Reagan and Daniel Patrick Moynihan and others who were part of that 
group sat down and in a bipartisan way came up with a solution. It is 
time.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman just said in a State 
like Florida that the President won in the last election is not getting 
the kind of support. Here is an interesting statistic, group of 
statistics, asking rural voters: ``Are Bush's proposed changes to 
Social Security mainly consistent with the values of the people in your 
community or out of step?'' And here is the pie chart. All rural 
voters, consistent with rural voters' values, 27 percent; out of step 
with our values, 61 percent. And Bush cleaned Senator Kerry's clock in 
rural areas, and 61 percent of rural America believe that the 
President's proposed changes to Social Security are out of step with 
their values. And when we look at white fundamentalists, 55 percent; 
conservatives, 47 percent; white women, 65 percent; Bush voters, 44 
percent; and Southerners, 58 percent.
  Why are we having this debate? Why are we having this argument when 
we have all these other issues that need to be addressed in Congress 
and the President keeps running against the wall, hitting his head, 
bouncing back, and thinking if he keeps running and keeps hitting his 
head that somehow it is going to change. And when this President in 
particular, who has done so well in rural areas, is losing support on 
this issue, it is mindboggling to me.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, the two of us are from a State 
and from a region of a State where it would be expected that there 
would be deep, deep concern about the potential privatization of Social 
Security. Obviously, we have a disproportionately high percentage of 
senior citizens in my district and the gentleman from Florida's 
district. But like the gentleman from Ohio said, across all demographic 
groups, all regions of the country, there is no group that has wide or 
deep support for this concept, and that is because people are 
uncomfortable at every level with the explosion of the deficit and this 
proposal's potential to expand it even more.

  When I asked at my live town hall meetings whether people were 
confident enough in their own investment ability to be assured that 
their own investment decisions would carry them all the way through 
their entire retirement years, no one except for two people in three 
town hall meetings with more than 600 people in attendance, no one 
raised their hand, because look at the ebb and flow of the stock 
market; and this proposal is not backed by the full faith and credit of 
the United States. If people hit a bump in the road where one year the 
stock market is not going so well, it is whatever is left when they 
retire in that account with a proportionate cut in their Social 
Security benefits.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Right. And if the gentleman from Florida will 
continue to yield, the new system, the new plan that they have where 
they give the money to Social Security and they put it in side 
accounts, they are going to invest it in T bills just like Social 
Security is. So there is no real advantage.
  The argument in the first proposal was that we are going to put it in 
a private account and they are going to be able to gain all this extra 
interest. Now the new proposal is saying they are going to take it and 
put it in a private account and they are only going to be able to 
invest it in T bills just like Social Security is now. So it is just 
getting more and more ridiculous. It is like a comedy of errors. Every 
single new proposal is worse than the last proposal. And I think they 
need to just work with us, work with our side, let us get a solution, 
make it more solvent, move forward, and start addressing poverty and 
health care and all the other issues here.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Florida 
will continue to yield, if he does not mind my adding one more thing, 
like I said, I am a freshman. I was elected. I have been in Congress 
for 6 months. I really expected there to be a lot more collegiality in 
this body. The gentlemen are veterans, now, of this process. I have 
talked to my Republican freshmen colleagues on the other side. We all 
expected there to be more of an opportunity to work together, less 
rancor. It is sort of astonishing, and it is astonishing, I think, to 
the average American that we are still bickering about this and that we 
are all sharpening our elbows and digging in and going to our 
respective corners instead of acknowledging, like we are willing to do, 
that there is a problem with Social Security.
  It is not a crisis like the President has been portraying; but there 
is a problem, a long-term problem with Social Security, and we need to 
come together and make some changes. But, unfortunately, the leadership 
in this Congress, the Republican leadership, just wants to be right, or 
somehow if they say it enough times, perhaps they think that they will 
be right when the American people are clearly telling them they are 
not.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Or that they just want to win, Mr. Speaker. If the 
gentleman will continue to yield, this sometimes is not even about 
policy. It is about winning the argument, and they are losing; so they 
are trying to find a new way to win it, and it is just not working out.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. And, Mr. Speaker, that is the reason why we are 
here. It is not about winning or losing under the Capitol dome. It is 
about the American people being able to win and keep confidence within 
this body. And I will tell my colleagues now, looking at the recent 
poll numbers, they do not feel good about what is happening here in 
Congress.
  There was an article on Friday, and it was in The Washington Post: 
``GOP Sounded the Alarm but didn't Respond to'' the issue of Social 
Security. And I would recommend Members take a look at this. It was 
written by Michael Allen, and I just want to take an excerpt out of 
this.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) mentioned something about winning, 
wanting to win. We are here to win on behalf of the American people; 
and one Republican Member of the other body, not this House but the 
other body, and I know that Members understand that we have the 
legislative branch, judicial branch, and executive branch but the 
legislative branch consists of the House and the Senate. But in the 
other body I must add that if the Republicans take this to a vote and 
the Democrats try to stop us, we will end up as the winners. That comes 
from a Member of the

[[Page H5242]]

other body that is from South Carolina.
  Let me just share this with my colleagues. This is not school yard 
kickball here. This is Social Security, and this is serious business; 
and this is not about because we can, we will. This is about doing the 
right thing. And it really is stomach-turning when we see individuals 
taking an end zone dance and talking about what we can do because we 
can do it.
  If I can, I would like to talk a little bit, because we have limited 
time here tonight, and we can talk about Social Security, but I have to 
address this issue of not only the Veterans Affairs but what is 
happening right now in Iraq and Afghanistan. Earlier tonight during the 
first Democratic hour, members of the Democratic Caucus read the names 
of those individuals who have fallen in the line of duty, and we honor 
and we respect them, and on behalf of a grateful country, we appreciate 
their family members' sacrifice. They paid the ultimate sacrifice, and 
so did their loved ones.
  A lot of mothers and fathers are no longer with us because we asked 
them, this Congress asked them, to go into battle and they lost their 
lives. And, Mr. Speaker, this is the reason why we run not only for 
Congress. And I hate to hear the gentlewoman from Florida say 6 months. 
I mean, she spent double-digit years in the State legislature. She has 
dealt with many of these issues in the Florida house and the Florida 
senate, and many of those issues are the same here. Unfortunately, the 
inaction on behalf of the Republican leadership is very disturbing, and 
I say some of them because I know some are people of good will and want 
to make sure we do the right thing.
  I want to point the attention of the Members, Mr. Speaker, to the 
June 27, today, article that was on page A13 of The Washington Post: 
``VA Gets the Picture, No Shortfall Here.'' I just want to take some 
excerpts out of this article because we have limited time, but we have 
to make sure that we call a spade a spade, and that is the reason why I 
like the 30-something Working Group because we put it on the table and 
let it be known. If anybody wants to make an argument, it is democracy. 
Bring it on and defend the situations that they are making. But, 
unfortunately, this is not school yard kickball. This is the United 
States Congress.
  ``Turns out that $1 billion shortfall for health care funding for our 
Nation disclosed last week by the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs 
hearing is only one of many important and vexing dilemmas facing top 
officials at the Department of Veterans Affairs.''
  I am going to go a little further down in the article. It talks about 
a conversation, I believe a conference call, by the Deputy Under 
Secretary Laura Miller, who said on the May 27 call, ``Many of our 
facilities, medical centers, community-based outpatient clinics, there 
are about 850 of them in the country, many in rural areas,'' Mr. 
Speaker, ``and some open only 1 or 2 days a month.'' Not 1 or 2 days a 
week; 1 or 2 days a month in rural areas. ``And other offices have a 
picture of Secretary Jim Nicholson prominently displayed. 
Unfortunately, however,'' Ms. Miller continued, ``there are many 
facilities that currently do not have the picture displayed. I am aware 
that the mailings of the pictures occurred on April 22, 2005. So that's 
more than 5 full weeks.'' It goes on to say that ``We are asking that 
you give this your highest priority.''

                              {time}  2300

  This is from Washington, DC. The highest priority, we will continue 
to ask daily on updates of the status until we are sure that all 
facilities have a current displayed picture.
  In the defense of local VA officials, it turns out that Miller was 
wrong. Not all the photos went out on the 22nd. We are hearing that 
some officials disagree that the photos should be the highest priority, 
and they are asking that it should not be. Also they are saying what 
they are focused on right now at these local VA facilities is they are 
trying to sell furniture to buy prescription drugs on behalf of 
veterans out there now.
  Then it goes on, and, unfortunately, it gets worse. The Secretary, 
Mr. Nicholson, when he testified in a hearing last week, Nicholson was 
the author of an April 5 letter to Senators saying ``I can assure you 
that the VA does not need additional funds to continue to provide 
timely and adequate service.''
  Let me just share something with you. The bottom line here, Mr. 
Speaker, when we have a Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs 
that is more concerned about his picture being displayed in VA 
hospitals and community-based facilities, some that I must add are only 
open 1 or 2 days a month, these are individuals that get all teary-eyed 
here on the floor talking about what we need to do for the troops and 
for the veterans, but meanwhile, back at the ranch, we have a $1 
billion shortfall. And Democrats have tried to do something about it.
  All I have to say to the Secretary is, he wants his picture 
displayed, I am going to put his picture in my office. His picture will 
no longer be the priority on behalf of veterans. We will to the Hill 
and fight on behalf of veterans and make sure that they do not have to 
wait 6 months to be able to see the ophthalmologist.
  Mr. Speaker, I know I am bending on the time here, but I wanted to 
share this with my colleagues, because I think it is important that 
everyone understands we are about the business of not just saying 
pounding our chest and saying ``we are going to go to Iraq and make 
sure that we have democracy there.'' We are making sure we keep our 
promise, not only to those individuals that have served in past 
conflicts, but are in present conflicts.
  So the individuals walking around here talking about what we are 
going to do, and how long we are going to stay, and there is no plan to 
make the coalition bigger or no plan really to start talking about how 
we are going to bring our troop levels down in Iraq, meanwhile 
Democrats are here adding amendments to the Committee on the Budget. 
And I must add again, we all know, and it is important our constituents 
know, that the majority runs this House of Representatives. The bottom 
line is, they bring bills to the floor, they bring issues to the floor. 
Some issues we can work with them on. But when it comes down to 
veterans, to health care, when it comes down to Social Security and 
folks want to talk about something that is going to take us back versus 
move us forward, we have a problem with it.
  There was an amendment, an alternative to the budget that was passed 
on March 5 of this year, the Democratic budget. It included a $20.9 
billion increase for the next 5 years for veterans health care in order 
to meet the needs of the returning soldiers and veterans who rely on VA 
hospital care. Without that, there will be an estimated fee, can I say 
``tax'' on veterans, to pay more for their health care.
  Now, they have been lied to. I will not be an unindicted co-
conspirator in that lie. I think it is important that we make sure that 
the veterans know. I see veterans, and I am not concerned about their 
party affiliation. The bottom line is what they get and are not 
getting. What they are not getting, in my opinion, is appropriate 
representation that they need here in Congress to make sure that they 
get what they need.
  Am I emotional about this? You are dog-gone right I am, because I 
would not be here under this flag if it was not for individuals that 
have served this country, day in and day out. Many of them have to put 
on a prosthetic limb to walk around in the morning. Many of those 
individuals cannot perform the kind of functions that they carried out 
prior to going into a conflict. So, I have no time and no tolerance for 
the Potomac Two-Step.
  Once again, Democrats, people want to know the difference. I am 
sharing it with them right now. Once again, an amendment in the 
committee by one of our great Members, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards), increased health care funding above President Bush's proposed 
budget by $1.9 billion, an estimate that the Republican budget plan for 
$798 million in veterans cuts over 5 years. Once again, a Democratic 
Member from Texas supported by Democratic members of the Committee on 
Ways and Means, a 15 to 20 vote.
  The bottom line is, one of two things needs to happen: Either some 
individuals on the Republican side have to step up and represent the 
people that sent them here, or the American people are going to have to 
make a difference.

  I will tell Members in closing that I am really, truly not concerned 
about

[[Page H5243]]

individuals' feelings being hurt about what I am sharing with them as 
it relates to facts and what we are sharing with them as it relates to 
facts. If we were here talking fiction, I would not be able to sleep 
well at night.
  I will tell you right now, this is factual. Individuals can go into 
the record. As a matter of fact, they can go to nationaljournal.com/
members/markups/2005/03/200506812.htm and find it. It is what it is. 
And if individuals do not want to man up and woman up and lead, then 
the American people need to make other decisions.
  The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the former chairman of the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, was removed; not by Democrats, not by 
the people in his district, but by the Republican Conference. Why? Why? 
This is Fox News, okay? This is what I am reading right now, Fox News, 
right off their website. ``Smith passed an increase in investment on 
the Veterans Affairs Administration budget that put him on a different 
page from party leaders.'' He is no longer the chairman because he 
decided to represent the veterans that are out there in America.
  So, the gentlewoman knows, being from Florida, we have a number of 
veterans. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) from Ohio has a number of 
proud veterans and reserve units in harm's way. It is important to 
stand up for them.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield 
further, there are three things I want to add to augment the gentleman 
from Florida's comments. One of them is 30-something oriented.
  I noted when I went and spoke at Memorial Day services this year and 
Veterans' Day services on November 11 of last year, that every previous 
Veterans' Day and Memorial Day that I was able to participate in as an 
elected official prior to my time in the legislature, I was able to 
thank them. And generally the crowds that come to those events are 
older folks, senior citizens especially in Florida, veterans of many 
wars. I was able to say ``thank you'' from our generation, because 
prior to now, our generation is the first since before World War II 
that has never been called to war, that had never had the casualties 
that the generations before us had. And I was able to thank them for 
allowing us to stand on their shoulders and their sacrifice.
  But I cannot say that any more. I cannot say that any more, because, 
as was read tonight, the more than 1,500 names that we are in the 
process of reading, we could have a whole hour just on the Iraq war and 
our deep concerns over that.
  But to continue in the gentleman's thought process about health care 
for veterans, I visited Walter Reed Army Medical Center a few weeks ago 
and had an opportunity to visit with soldiers who had come back from 
Iraq and Afghanistan without their legs, hearing their stories, 
watching the pain etched in their face, and the dedication that they 
have. To the person, they wanted to go back, and their regret was they 
were not able to, they had to leave their comrades behind.
  These people are struggling to get the health care they need when 
they are still enlisted. At home in South Florida and across the 
country, our veterans, as the gentleman said, 6 months is not an 
exaggeration for how long our veterans have to wait to get their health 
care needs taken care of. Is that the thanks that we give them, the 
proud veterans that have served this country?
  We sound so soap-boxish, but your actions have to back up your words. 
It is really nice to stand on the floor and give a good speech and get 
all choked up, but what matters is how you cast that vote and what your 
light up on that board when they put it up there says, and you are 
either with them or against them. The Members that voted against those 
amendments that were offered in committee and on this floor and who 
opposed them, in spite of valiant speeches that were made on behalf of 
those veterans, should be ashamed of themselves.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, 70 
percent of those currently in Iraq and Afghanistan are under 30, so 
they are going to need to access this system because they are going to 
have a lot of years in it.

                              {time}  2310

  Mr. Speaker, we are wrapping up here; I think we just have a few 
minutes left. If you have any e-mails you want to send to us, the 
address is as follows: [email protected]. Again, the 
address is [email protected].
  I received a letter today from a local veteran in Ohio. Korean War 
veteran Bob Brothers wrote and sent me a copy of a letter to the editor 
that he was sending. He wrote this after the flag burning amendment 
that we voted on last week. He calls it, ``Conundrum: Congress of the 
United States is voting on a flag desecration amendment to the 
Constitution of the United States of America. The riddle is, this 
allows Congressmen to stand under the American flag and declare, I am 
patriotic. The pun is these same Congressmen vote against mandatory 
funding for the Veterans Affairs Department. This demonstrates to me 
the true hypocrisy of Congressmen and women who vote against mandatory 
funding for the Veterans Affairs Department. Why are these two items 
not attached so that courage, honor, and valor become necessary when 
they enter the Chamber to vote?
  ``A veteran is a veteran is a veteran. When as a young kid I hit the 
beach in Korea, I did not see any Congressmen or Congresswomen, and I 
was not asked my income before going ashore. I will not vote for anyone 
who tries to show they are patriotic by voting for the flag desecration 
amendment and voting against mandatory funding for the Veteran Affairs 
Department. Iraqi Freedom veterans take note: as soon as you are 
discharged, you will begin a lifelong battle with your government. A 
vote for the flag desecration amendment coupled with a vote against 
mandatory funding for the Veterans Affairs Department brings shame on 
the very symbol of liberty and freedom that my comrades gave life and 
limb and more since it all began over 200 years ago. Not giving the 
care veterans earned and deserved is burning the flag.''
  That was from Bob Brothers, a Korean War veteran from my district who 
is at every Memorial Day, at every Veterans' Day event that there is. 
They are committed to the community. So I just wanted to share that.
  We have a long way to go here, and I think the point tonight is, the 
argument nationally is about Social Security and how we are going to 
fix a problem that does not exist for 40 years, or are we going to 
address the veterans issues that we face today.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I think that we have demonstrated 
here tonight, as we will in the future, that there are so many issues 
facing our generation, and we need to make sure that we take this 
country back in the right direction so that when our generation 
inherits the results of the decisions that we are making here, that we 
are not struggling to make sure that we can clean up the mess that was 
left for us.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, once again, we had another good 30-
something Working Group Special Order. We look forward to coming back 
after we celebrate our independence on the Fourth of July. As my 
colleagues know, here on the Washington Mall we have quite a 
celebration and throughout America in many small towns and cities. We 
will be coming back to the floor to talk about Social Security, factual 
information, and to talk about how Democrats are part of the solution.
  I must say, once again, we are not here to generalize. We have some 
Republicans on the other end that are totally against the privatization 
of Social Security and totally for the full funding, as the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Chairman Smith) was, as it relates to veterans 
affairs, doing better by our veterans. Seventy percent of the 
individuals who are fighting in Iraq are young people who are doing 
what they have to do.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, we would like to not only thank the 
Democratic leader but the Democratic leadership for allowing us to come 
again.

                          ____________________