[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16021-16027]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1645
                       30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Drake). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, once again, it is an honor to not 
only address the House but the American people also at the same time. 
Madam Speaker, we would like to thank the Democratic leader for 
allowing us to have the 30-something Working Group once again here 
before the House. The 30-something Working Group is comprised of 
Members that are in the 30-somethings and 20-somethings on the 
Democratic side here in the House, and we come together on a weekly 
basis to talk about issues here on the floor that are facing Americans 
and also issues that will be facing Americans in the future.
  We think our purpose here in this Congress is to, A, talk about those 
things that are working, put forth proposals that will make life easier 
for future generations and those generations that are rearing children 
now as we speak, such as myself, and that are trying to provide for 
their families, such as myself. But the average American, we give voice 
to them. We make sure that even if they have retired, issues like 
Social Security, issues like national security, issues like health 
care, the Federal debt, that are going to bring challenges to their 
homefront, that we give them voice here in this Congress.
  Being in the minority, every week, Madam Speaker, I always share not 
only with the Members but everyone within the sound of my voice that in 
the minority, by the House rules, the majority side runs the agenda: 
what comes to the floor, what goes to committees, who comes before the 
committees, what will be the agenda in those committees. And I think it 
is important for people to understand that and also for Members to be 
reminded. So many of the issues that are facing our veterans, many of 
the issues that are facing everyday families as it relates to health 
care, education, the environment, general things, homeland security, 
what our men and women get in Iraq and what they do not get in 
Afghanistan, what have you, goes through the process here, and it is a 
majority/minority process. Some pieces of legislation we are able to 
work on in a bipartisan level.
  The main issues that are facing Americans are, unfortunately, 
partisan in many ways, not by what I will call the everyday Republican 
and Democrat, but as it relates to individuals in leadership.
  We have been talking for several weeks, Madam Speaker, on the issue 
of Social Security. We are going to talk about that some more tonight. 
I think it is also important to talk about issues that have taken 
place. We had our birthday recently just out here on the Washington 
Mall, July 4th, which was an outstanding celebration not only giving 
honor to those that have served in past conflicts but the fathers of 
our country for standing up on behalf of the very freedom that they 
provided us and we live under today. Also, we had an opportunity to 
look at the issues of the minimum wage increase proposal that came 
before this House that was presented by Democrats here, making sure 
that Americans will have more to take home in their pockets to provide 
for their families, but, unfortunately, that did not turn out the way 
we wanted it to. And also, Madam Speaker, we would be remiss if we did 
not address the issue of a possible breach of national security as it 
relates to the outing of a CIA agent by an adviser in the White House, 
and there is

[[Page 16022]]

a lot of discussion not only going on throughout the country but also 
here in the Congress.
  So kind of setting out some of the issues that we will talk about 
tonight, those are the main issues. But I want to just open up and talk 
a little bit about the Social Security issue.
  As the Members know, for several weeks, there has been a lot of 
discussion. The President flew around, spent a lot of Federal jet fuel 
at taxpayers' expense trying to make us belief that there was a crisis, 
an outright crisis, that the roof was going to cave in on Social 
Security if we did not move towards privatization. And I think that, 
not only in recent weeks but in recent days, the American people have 
told the White House that they are not in love--neither do they want 
Social Security to be privatized. Claude Pepper, from the very State 
that I am from, fought on this floor and stood where I am standing now 
and in the well, fighting for Social Security not only for the retirees 
but for those Americans that receive disability benefits, for those 
young children that are receiving survivor benefits, and privatization 
was nowhere in the discussion.
  So being from Florida and understanding the significance of Social 
Security, understanding that it is social and security at the same time 
for those Americans that have put in the hours of work and commitment 
of paying into a system that will be there for them when they need it, 
not to pay into the system, to invest and gamble with their retirement 
or with their security if they were to get hurt on the job.
  So the proposals that are there now, the President came out with a 
privatization proposal, and then we had some Members on the majority 
side, the Republican side, that came out with a proposal that was also 
privatization. Let us just put it this way: He said, My plan is 
privatization, and without privatization, Social Security will not 
work. Their plan is saying, We are going to take from the trust fund 
and we are going to move some things around and make a right and a 
left. But at the end of the game, it is still privatization.
  I think that, as we continue this debate here in Congress, I want to 
commend some of my friends on the Republican side that do not see it 
the way some of their colleagues see it as it relates to the 
privatization of Social Security. I commend them for standing up to 
those individuals, but I also especially commend my Democratic 
leadership from day one, not, well, we decided to get on the side of 
right after the American people said that they rejected the thought or 
they continue to reject the thought of privatization. We were there all 
along. We have some of our Republican colleagues that are saying, I am 
not with my leadership on this.
  So for the leadership on the said committee that handles Social 
Security, I think it is important that we identify that. Why do we come 
to the floor? We come to the floor to shed light and let Members on the 
floor in this Congress know that we know exactly what some Members are 
up to as it relates to watching out more for privatization versus 
shoring up and making sure that Social Security is there for future 
generations. I think they're well intended, but I believe that they are 
married to privatization more than they are married to making sure that 
Social Security is there.
  So the gentleman from the great State of Ohio (Mr. Ryan), my very 
good friend and our co-chair of the 30-something Working Group, it is 
good to be on the floor with him again.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, it is good to be back. And I cannot 
help but thank the gentleman from Florida for all his leadership on 
this issue and a variety of other issues not only in the State of 
Florida but around the country.
  We had our friends here on the other side of the aisle, good people, 
good Members of Congress, but a little flawed in their data. They were 
talking about how the President's tax cuts accounted for a 22 percent 
drop in the budget deficit, 22 percent from the prediction that they 
had had. And what I would like to say is, all of a sudden, the tax cuts 
are working now. All of a sudden, they are working. What they forget to 
tell people is that the decrease in the deficit, and I have news 
reports here from five or six different news organizations, is the 
President said that this 22 percent drop vindicates his tax-cutting 
policies, and I just want to read several accounts here. This is from 
NBC News: ``An independent budget analyst said that the improvements 
are almost all the result of one-time events, including the expiration 
of a 1-year corporate tax holiday. There was also an increase in taxes 
paid on investment gains from last year's stock market run-up.''
  The Wall Street Journal said: ``private- and public-sector analysts 
remained unimpressed given the fiscal pressures just ahead . . . 
Private-sector analysts reiterated that the promise was calculated from 
the administration's 2004 deficit projection, a number widely 
considered inflated.''
  The Washington Times, not exactly a liberal newspaper, reports, the 
new forecast would ``leave a deficit that is still the third largest in 
history.''
  Goldman Sachs ``in a research note on Wednesday, said it agreed with 
the administration forecast for this year but not for the longer 
term.'' The main reasons? ``The jump in tax revenues stemmed largely 
from one-time gains in the stock market and the elimination of a 
temporary tax break last year for business to invest in new 
equipment.''
  So we had the stock market, the expiration of a bonus depreciation 
rule that reduced business tax collections until the end of 2004, and a 
1-year tax holiday for corporations. This is a one-time bonus for the 
government, and it was based on a number that was inflated from last 
year.
  And the fact of the matter is this: There are people all over the 
country who do not benefit from that. They do not benefit from the 
corporate tax bonus that this Congress passed. And the money that is 
getting invested is not getting invested in Ohio. It is getting 
invested in Beijing and Shanghai and all over the world while people 
are struggling, going out to get a second job and a third job. This is 
not having the kind of impact we wanted to have here in the United 
States of America. And that is why the tax cut has not worked. The 
deficit is going to go back up next year. We do not even factor in the 
cost of the war, which is at $300 billion. And I am not arguing that a 
lot of our systems do not need reform because I believe that they do. 
But to say that we do not need to make investments in education, that 
we do not need to invest; like today in the Committee on Education and 
the Workforce, we wanted to increase funding for Pell grant. We could 
not get it done. We wanted to get it up to, I think, $8,200 by 2013. We 
could not get it passed through committee. And how are we going to 
compete with the Chinese? How are we going to compete with the Indians 
if we are not willing to make the proper investments in the education 
system in this country? Barriers are being put up, and kids will not go 
to college because they cannot afford it. Those that do go, the next 
thing, they owe more money when they get out, $15,000, $20,000 just for 
a bachelor's degree. So to say that we do not need to make the proper 
investments, that there is enough money in the system, and to say that 
those people who pay the lowest corporate tax rates in the history of 
our country somehow are making the kind of contribution and meeting 
their obligation to society, I think is wrong.
  I did not mean to divert from the Social Security debate, but one of 
the issues that we always talk about during the 30-something hour, 
Madam Speaker, is that we are running these annual deficits, and the 
long-term debt, as shown here on this chart, is $7.8 trillion we owe. 
That is our national debt. Each person who is alive and breathing in 
the United States of America owes $26,436.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, how about the 
baby that was just born an hour ago? What do they owe?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, $26,436.78, and counting.

[[Page 16023]]


  Mr. MEEK of Florida. How about the individual that is retired, 
veterans who have served our country?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, $26,436.78. So to every citizen that 
can hear me, this is what they owe, and to every citizen that cannot 
hear me, this is what they owe. And to run the country, the 
Republicans, a few months ago, had to lift the cap on the debt. They 
had to lift the debt ceiling because they are running high deficits. 
And to come down here in 2005 and tout supply-side economics, which the 
first President George Bush called ``voodoo economics,'' is hilarious, 
absolutely hilarious, when we have kids going to school all over the 
country that live in poverty; 50 to 60 percent of the kids in 
Youngstown City School District live in poverty; 85 percent qualify for 
free and reduced lunch. And we are talking about how great the economy 
is going? I would like to live in some of these places.
  And I think it is offensive, quite frankly, in many ways to somehow 
suggest that, by a slight decrease in the budget deficits because a 
loophole was closed and the stock market had a halfway decent run for a 
few months, that that somehow suggests that everyone is doing well is 
just out of touch really, out of touch with reality.

                              {time}  1700

  This is the reality: $7.8 trillion this country owes. I love how the 
President says, well, if Congress would just rein in spending. The 
Congress is Republican. A Republican House, Republican Senate, 
Republican President; and they are blaming each other about who has got 
to rein in spending; $26,000 you owe to the Federal Government. And 
they play this game, well, the President says Congress has got to 
restrain spending; the Congress says, well, the President has got to do 
his thing. They are all Republicans. This whole Chamber is controlled 
by the Republican Party. The Senate is controlled by the Republican 
Party. The White House is occupied by a Republican. And one of the 
issues we talk about all the time here is at the same time they are 
passing all of these corporate tax breaks and they tell everybody how 
great everything is going, veterans are underfunded by almost $3 
billion. We have enough money to give tax cuts, but we do not have 
enough money to fund our veterans.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the 
real issue here is the fact that even when the veterans receive more 
money, does my colleague know why they receive more money?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Why?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Not because the leadership on the opposite side 
thought it was the right thing to do. It is because we came to the 
floor and members of the committee ran amendments, and newspaper 
articles were printed, the fact that we have veterans clinics that are 
only open once or twice a month to assist veterans. That is the reason 
why.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Wait a minute. You are contradicting a statement 
here. The majority leader said, veterans need to know that no veteran 
will be without their health care in 2005 and no veteran will be 
without their health care in 2006. Is the gentleman saying that that is 
not the case?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. What I am saying is that the reality of the 
situation is the fact that veterans are waiting a long time. Some 
veterans are not receiving the care that they deserve. Veterans that 
are returning back from theater, and the gentleman is on the Committee 
on Armed Services and so am I, they cannot even get an appointment at 
the VA. These are true statements.
  Just before the July 4 break, 2 weeks ago, we reported that one of 
the highest priorities of the Under Secretary of Veterans Affairs was 
to make sure that the Veterans Affairs Secretary's picture was posted 
at every VA hospital and clinic throughout the country. That was the 
topic of a conference call. Thank God some of the people that were the 
administrators of the Veterans Affairs were appalled by it and said, 
our real issue is trying to pay for meds and to make sure that we are 
able to provide for the veterans who are walking through our doors, 
that we have what they need to be able to make themselves whole and to 
be able to make themselves healthy. We are selling furniture; we are 
thinking about things in our budget that we can move to provide some 
level of care to these veterans.
  Now, I say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), I cannot wait to 
really dive into the issue of the whole veterans issue, because I can 
tell my colleague right now, I do not care what one's party affiliation 
is. If there is an American out there that is not registered and there 
are Americans out there who are not registered to vote, if you 
participate in the democratic process and elections, good. If you do 
not, this issue is still your issue. If you believe that you do not 
want anything to do with government, or you think there is too much 
government in your life or too less government, not enough government 
in your life, this is your issue.
  The bottom line is, we have individuals that have stood in harm's way 
recently, not just several, 4 or 5 years ago, 300 yards from the enemy 
that was trained to kill them, who are not even able to receive primary 
care from the VA hospital. Not because the VA hospital employees and 
administrators are not willing to provide that care; it is the fact 
that here in this Congress decisions were made on the majority side not 
to provide the funding that is needed to make sure that veterans are 
able to receive what we told them we were going to give them.
  Now, I do not care what anyone says about the whole issue of Democrat 
versus Republican. We are under one flag, okay? And the bottom line is, 
we talked about the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and what 
happened to him, the former chairman of the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs, what happened to him. He was removed.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, he was not only removed from the 
chairmanship, he was removed from the Committee on Veterans Affairs 
altogether.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. For doing what? For doing the right thing.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Trying to stand up.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. All the veterans organizations stand firmly with 
him, but guess what? They stand firmly with him off the committee right 
now, because that is where he is.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) is right. I am glad 
he corrected me. Not only was he removed as chairman, his stationery 
does not even have the name of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs on it 
any more because they moved him off the committee.
  So I am saying that I do not, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) 
does not, and the 30-something Working Group does not apologize for 
bringing light to the issue of the fact that we are going to talk about 
veterans and talk about mom and apple pie and drape ourselves in the 
flag and get all choked up down here and raise our voice talking about 
how we love the veterans. Well, the real deal comes down to who is 
running the House, what the veterans are getting and what they are not 
getting. And I will tell my colleagues right now, they are not getting 
that.
  Now, I am going to yield back to the gentleman, but I have a few 
points that we must make on Social Security before we leave that, 
because the veterans issue, we can go on for 12 hours on that. We also 
have to talk about Mr. Rove and what he is sharing with members of the 
media, putting CIA agents in jeopardy. But that is a whole other issue. 
It is a serious issue that we have to deal with, especially in the 
middle of this effort against terrorism, global terrorism.
  Now, let me just say, I am just going to take this moment since we 
are pausing here for a minute, so we do not have to come back to it, 
the issue on Social Security.
  Now, there has been some news report, the gentleman mentioned the 
Washington Times, which I think that they are not necessarily, like the 
gentleman said, a liberal newspaper, as a

[[Page 16024]]

matter of fact, the most conservative one, one of the most conservative 
newspapers here in Washington, D.C., and they are talking about what is 
going on as it relates to the leadership between the White House, the 
House, and the other body across the hall about the whole debate of 
Social Security. I think it is important that they point out here in 
this article that was published on July 10 by Ms. Fagan, Amy, the 
President continues to campaign for comprehensive reform of a system, 
but Democrats oppose what they call ``privatization,'' and what is 
privatization, I must add parenthetically. Congressional Republican 
leaders realize the public expects action after hearing about the issue 
for months, that from one of my colleagues from Florida that will go 
unnamed at this time; but if my colleagues want to get the article, 
they can. ``We've told everyone the House is on fire. It is time to 
offer them a fire hose or a bucket, or maybe a glass of water, 
depending on what the Senate can pass.'' Fighting amongst themselves on 
privatization.
  Another headline, Congressional Daily. This is the publication that 
comes out here under the Capitol dome for not only staffers, but those 
individuals who are working on issues within the Federal Government, 
Federal Government issues, especially legislative, let you know what is 
going on. ``White House Still Pressing For Robust Private Accounts.''
  Now, I am going to tell my colleagues that it is important, and that 
is also an article from 7/6/05 if anyone wants to look it up, any of 
the Members want to take a look at it. It is important that we read not 
only these articles, but we take part in what goes into these articles.
  I will tell my colleague one thing. This whole issue of saying we are 
going to continue to say privatization until we have privatization will 
not work. The article goes on to say, we believe the majority of 
Republicans are for privatization, private accounts. I do not believe 
that is true at this moment.
  I will tell my colleague another reason why it is something that I 
think that Republicans will make a career decision. I think the people 
of America, once they learn more about privatization of Social 
Security, will know that, A, they will lose benefits; B, it will 
increase the deficit; C, it will not bring a better situation to their 
overall need of Social Security in the long run.
  So once that happens, I say to the gentleman, I think it is important 
that people understand, even some of our Republican friends understand 
that if they want to make a career decision just to get along with some 
members of the leadership on their side, they may very well be handing 
their seat over to someone else, either in their own party or maybe a 
Democrat replacing them. Because Americans overall, they watch out for 
family and making sure that they are able to provide for future 
generations and that they are secure.
  So one other little piece here as it relates to another article I 
think is important. It came out of an Ohio paper, about a truck 
carrying Social Security debate to the steps of Congress. They sent a 
flatbed with a million signatures saying, no privatization of Social 
Security. Make sure Social Security is in surplus; yes, do that, but no 
privatization of Social Security. People are seeing this, Democrats and 
Republicans alike. So these are just a few articles that I was able to 
pull up. I wanted to take some of the articles that were considered 
``mainstream media'' and also ``conservative media'' to show that there 
is a nexus there of shedding light on the issue that this issue of 
privatization is not a great idea.
  What we stand for on this side of the aisle is making sure that, A, 
we keep the integrity of Social Security and we do not drive the 
deficit all the way into the ground in trying to go to private 
accounts. That is what we are asking for. We are asking for also, Madam 
Speaker, a bipartisan debate, not only debate, but action of Democrats 
and Republicans working together, like we did when Tip O'Neill was 
sitting in that seat, Speaker Tip O'Neill, and Ronald Reagan was in the 
White House. I do not think that is too much to ask for in this debate.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. People want us to solve problems. They do not want 
us to sit here and be partisan. The fact of the matter is this. These 
are facts. The Democrats are not in power. It hurts me to say it. I do 
not like saying it, but when you are analyzing the direction of the 
country and both Chambers and the executive branch are all run by one 
party, and they come out with privatization schemes, tax cuts, 
primarily for people who make over $400,000 a year, corporate tax rates 
are the lowest they have been in the history of the country, all of 
these things, and then we are here trying to say, well, wait a minute. 
You are not funding veterans. Wait a minute. The American people do not 
want to privatize Social Security.
  In fact, we have the poll here of the rural voters: Are President 
Bush's proposed changes to Social Security mainly consistent with the 
values of the people in your community or out of step? Mr. Speaker, 61 
percent of rural voters say that the privatization scheme is out of 
step with their values, because we have guaranteed benefits. We have a 
system that works, has worked, will continue to work with minor 
adjustments, not a privatization scheme. That is not the right way to 
go.
  If you look at the decisions that have been made over the past few 
years, they have not been good for the country: losing hundreds of 
thousands of jobs in Ohio alone, millions of jobs throughout the 
country, and the jobs replacing the jobs that are leaving are $10,000 
less, $11,000 less a year, without health care benefits. Wal-Mart is 
basically getting corporate welfare because so many of their employees 
are on Medicaid. So they think, why should we give our people health 
care, they could go on Medicaid. Who pays for Medicaid? We pay for 
Medicaid. The country. The public pays for Medicaid. Why is the public 
subsidizing the wealthiest company in the country? It just does not 
make any sense.
  And the decisions that are being made, the lack of attention to the 
issue of China and what is going on with the manipulation of their 
currency and the lack of trying to implement democratic reforms in 
China, all of these things add up to say, we are going in the wrong 
direction.
  Now, I would like to bring up one point, I say to the gentleman from 
Florida, if I can, because we started talking a little bit about the 
veterans. I just want to kind of lay out, and the gentleman knows I 
like my charts.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. You love your charts.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I love my charts, because I think they lay it out 
for us.
  Now, I want to just talk about for a couple of minutes exactly what 
the scenario was. We have been talking about, and I was on the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs last Congress, how underfunded the VA 
was and is.

                              {time}  1715

  On the VA committee, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Strickland) was 
always down here talking about these issues, the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Filner), we had a great committee.
  The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Evans) has done a great job as the 
ranking member, talking about how the veterans are not getting the 
proper funding for health care. They are raising user fees. They are 
raising their copay. It went from $2 to $7 to $15. More veterans are 
moving into the VA system, especially in places like northeast Ohio 
where people are losing their health care benefits, so veterans go into 
the VA system.
  So we were complaining about this and arguing that we need more 
funding. So was the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the chairman 
of the committee. He tried and tried and tried to get more founding in 
there. Bang, leadership knocked him out, stripped him of his 
chairmanship and of his committee assignment on Veterans.
  So, on June 23, the Bush Administration acknowledged a 2005 shortfall 
for the VA of a billion dollars. Now, they knew in April, but they 
announced it in June. So what did the Democrats

[[Page 16025]]

do? Why are we different? We are different because 1 day later, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) offered an amendment to eliminate 
the billion dollar shortfall in the VA health care for 2005 and put 
another billion dollars in through the Labor, Health and Human Services 
Bill and in the Education Appropriations Bill.
  The Republican majority refused to allow that amendment. Let me 
repeat that. The Republican majority refused to allow us to offer an 
amendment that would put $1 billion more back into the veterans system. 
On June 28, the President and the Bush administration acknowledged, in 
fiscal year 2006, the shortfall would be $2.7 billion.
  The Secretary also acknowledged that there will be a shortfall of 
$1.5 billion in 2006, which would reach $2.7 in the fiscal year of 
2006, way too many details.
  The bottom line is, there is going to be a shortage of money in the 
out years as well. So on that same day, the Democrats tried again, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), tried again to add a billion 
dollars in. The Republicans refused to allow us to do it.
  So there, on a couple of different occasions, we had tried to fix the 
billion dollar shortfall in veterans health care, and we were not 
allowed to bring it up for a vote here in the House of Representatives.
  It is not brain surgery. And the way this body works, you do not have 
to be a Philadelphia lawyer to figure it out. But that is how things 
transpired. The Democrats wanted to offer a billion dollars to close 
the gap in veterans spending, and we were not allowed to do it.
  So my point is that if we were in charge, these are the things that 
we would be doing. These are the kinds of initiatives that we would try 
to implement in the country. And, you know, we come here, and we come 
to the floor, and we try to do as much as we can to try to talk about 
veterans and a lot of other issues. But quite frankly, we continue to 
run into stone walls.
  As I said, the Majority Leader said there would not be a shortfall. 
That is just simply not what the numbers tell us. So I appreciate it. 
This is great. But I think this veterans component fits into the kinds 
of decisions that are being made, the kind of leadership that we are 
getting here out of this body, out of this chamber.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. It is important. Our job is to be able to speak 
the truth, share, not only with the Members, but with the leadership 
what is happening, what is not happening. But I just want to back up 
here. You mentioned a June 24th date that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Edwards) offered the amendment.
  Because I like third party validators to make sure that folks do not 
think that we are coming to the floor, we are having a little pregame, 
we talk about, well, you say it like this, I say it like that, and who 
cares if we are telling the truth or not.
  House Resolution 3010, the vote was number 320, on June 24, 2005, 
failed on a partisan vote 185 to 216. Republicans voted against that 
opportunity to add in a billion dollars to the Veterans Affairs 
legislation to shore up the shortfall.
  On June 28, a couple of days later, Republicans rejected a Democratic 
attempt to make up the shortfall in the House. Once again, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) leading Democrats down the area of 
making sure in the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill to be able to 
provide for our veterans throughout this country. H.R. 3057, vote 
number 325, June 28, 2005, failed 217 to 189; once again, the majority 
stopping the Democrats from assisting our veterans in the way that we 
want to assist them.
  I would even go further on to say, on June 29th, a day later, where 
the Senate approved, and this is important, because you talked about 
this, but I just want to go further into it; the Senate understood what 
Democrats were trying to do here, or the other body understood what 
Democrats tried to do here on the floor. And there was a Member that 
said we need to be able, when we get into conference, match up on the 
$1.5 billion effort to make sure that we give Veteran Affairs some of 
what they need, not all, a $1.5 billion effort.
  We then came to the floor, Democrats, once again. The other body 
passed it 96 to zero, 96 to zero Senate vote on June 29th of this year. 
On June 30th, we had a vote here on the floor right before the break, 
to go on the break for Independence Day Break. Republicans blocked 
procedurally that effort from happening, and did not want to put in the 
amount of money that the Democrats were looking to put in.
  And I think that it is important that we understand that they wanted 
to add $300 million, saying, when we get to conference, we will kind of 
figure it out, when we could have matched up with the Senate, or with 
the other body I must add, in making sure that there would be no 
question, and that veterans will not be in a holding pattern, and 
Veterans Affairs administrators will not say, maybe if, I do not know, 
if we get the 1.5 this is what we will be able to do to provide care 
for our men and women that are coming out of the theatre, and those men 
and woman that have served in World War II and other conflicts, Korea, 
Vietnam, what have you, first Gulf and so on.
  Making sure that they receive the benefits, Grenada, making sure that 
they receive what they deserve. Bosnia, making sure that they receive 
what they deserve. So like you said, what is the difference?
  Well, the difference is that we are here fighting on behalf of not 
only veterans, this is not the only issue, we are fighting on making 
sure that Social Security is there for every American for the future 
and that they have as many benefits as they need to be able to survive.
  We are also here to make sure that working Americans can make a 
livable wage and also to promote not only health care, but education. 
So when folks start talking about what is the difference, there is a 
big difference. And it is right here in the record.
  And so if we have to take the journal and pull it out and start 
talking about where there has been Democratic leadership and where 
there has been Republicans standing in the schoolhouse door, then we 
will do that. And, hopefully, one of two things will happen: Either the 
American people will say enough is enough, just because someone says I 
need to vote a certain way, and I am going to vote that way because I 
am who I am and my father and mother and what have you have been a 
Republican; it is not about Republican. It is not about Democratic. It 
is not about independent. It is about leadership. It is about making 
sure that we do what we are supposed to when we are supposed to on 
behalf of the country.
  What I want to do, I know that you have your chart there, but I want 
to talk a little bit about homeland security when we come to the floor 
next week. Because I am very, very concerned about some of the issues 
that I am hearing, especially after the London transit bombing attacks. 
We are fine. We have moved mass transit security to a higher level. We 
are in good shape.
  I think it is important that we share with the American people, and 
also with the Members of the House that may not be aware, that we are 
not fine, and that there are things that we should be doing on behalf 
of every American to make sure that they are secure.
  Because if we are walking around saying we are fine, that means that 
we really have no work to do, and we have a lot of work to do. So I am 
glad that you took the record out, and you have your chart and I have 
my piece of paper, about what is actually happening as it relates to 
Veterans Affairs, what has happened, what is happening to veterans. And 
we are here, even though we are in the minority, doing what we can to 
make sure that they have a voice on this floor, amongst many other 
Members that are also doing good work and making sure that they have 
voice in this Congress and the battle continues, and we want them to be 
with us in that battle.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. There is no doubt about it. You have been down to 
Guantanamo. I was down to Guantanamo last week. You know, we have 
soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. These are the

[[Page 16026]]

people who are going to come back and use the VA system.
  And just to wrap up the VA portion of our program, some people may be 
sitting at home and may be saying, well, maybe we just do not have 
enough money, maybe we just do not have the resources to provide for 
the veterans. And I want to show this graph, which the last graph was 
just too jammed up; there were a lot of words on there.
  But I think this is just where we are at. Permanent tax cuts way on 
the left. What is the cost in trillions of dollars over the next 10 
years? We are going to spend $1.8 trillion over the next 10 years to 
make the tax cuts permanent.
  We are going to spend $800 billion to make the tax cuts permanent for 
the top 1 percent; $800 billion for people who make $400,000; $500,000; 
$600,000; $700,000; $800,000; $900,000 a year, over a million dollars a 
year, not begrudging people who make a lot of money, God bless you, but 
we are going to spend $800 billion giving them their tax break, and we 
are only going to spend $300 billion on veterans.
  And all we are asking for here is a billion dollars for the next 
year, or $2.7 billion for 2006, and $3 billion or $4 billion maybe for 
2007. We are giving $800 billion away to the top 1 percent of the 
people who live in the country. We cannot come up with $3 billion for 
our veterans? Almost 2,000 already over in Iraq and Afghanistan who 
have been killed.
  I mean, this is just a priority. It should be a priority for the 
country. So it is not that we do not have the money, it is an issue of 
choice. It is an issue of priority. And right now, it is obvious that 
we are not making the veterans a priority.
  You know, quite frankly, I know the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) 
has and I have, many Members in this chamber have been to the funerals 
of our soldiers who have been killed. And I think the least we can do 
is make sure those who get injured or those who serve this country can 
come back and know that their veterans health care is going to be there 
for them.
  So the money is there; it is just not a priority. Again, the 
Democrats tried on several different occasions to put amendments on to 
spending bills. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) has taken the 
lead on this. The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) has taken the 
lead on this, to try to put that billion dollars in there to make sure 
that everybody is covered.
  And it was clearly rejected. So it is an issue of priority. The money 
is there. We have chosen not to do it.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I am glad that you broke it down even further as 
it relates to the whole Veterans Affairs issue and where our priorities 
are and where they are not right now. I think it is also important for 
us to shed light on this question of national security.

                              {time}  1730

  As you know, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), ranking 
member of the Committee on Government Reform, put forth a letter today 
asking Mr. Rove and the White House to send the Presidential advisor 
Karl Rove to the Hill to explain under oath what he said and what he 
did not say as it relates to this issue of outing a CIA agent.
  I would go further to say, this is a very serious issue. When this 
was first broken, when this story first broke that a CIA agent was out, 
the White House denied any involvement in that practice. And when the 
question was brought up by Mr. Rove, we were told by a White House 
spokesman, the press was and the American people, that he would be 
shocked if he had anything to do with this.
  Later, after the special prosecutor which had to be appointed, and 
the President did appoint a special prosecutor or the call for a 
special prosecutor or the administration did, we find out that his 
attorney admits that he did have a conversation with a reporter about 
the fact that the ambassador's wife was a secret agent, or CIA agent.
  Now, the gentleman and I both, and Members of Congress and some 
members of the staff and definitely of our intelligence agencies, 
receive a level of security clearance of top secret. So did Mr. Rove. 
By virtue of the fact that he works in the White House, he advised the 
President of the free world on decisions that he should make and that 
he should not make. He has been in very high secret, top secret 
conversations. The White House receives more intelligence than the 
average Member of Congress, be it House or Senate and their staff. And 
Mr. Rove is a part of that very small group. To have any discussion to 
head off bad press of a reporter or a weekly magazine does not reach 
the bar of breaking national security.
  Now, I think it is important that you also know and we share with the 
Members who may not know that in this particular case this is connected 
with the whole issue of going into Iraq. Now, I will tell you Iraq is 
Iraq and it has happened. We are dealing with it. We are supporting our 
men and women there, making sure that they have the supplies, making 
sure that they have the equipment that they need to be able to fight 
daily against insurgents and to try to help the Iraqi people make 
themselves whole or stand up or stand firmly on their own two feet 
governmental-wise.
  But I will tell you this, that the Republican Congress has pulled 
individuals to the Hill to testify for far less than outing a secret 
agent of the CIA, far less. And I will not demoralize the time here on 
the House floor for how much less than they have pulled people for 
lesser issues, for statements, for what we may believe has something to 
do not with national security but with their personal affairs that they 
have pulled issues to this floor for far less.
  This is very serious. And I do not agree with the White House on, 
well, you know, we do not believe we had anything to say. Now the tune 
is changing, and they are now saying to make sure that there is no 
problem and to make sure that we can assure the American people that 
those individuals that have received top secret clearance in the White 
House, that the integrity of every employee that has received that 
clearance, we are willing to hold ourselves to the highest standards, 
and they are not doing that right now.
  Now, this is not just political spin. This is outing of a secret 
agent of the CIA. And so to say that, how do we know that he knew that 
she was a secret agent? Well, I am sorry. Any agent that works for the 
Central Intelligence Agency should not be identified as far as I am 
concerned unless they work in the public information or they are on the 
recruitment trail going to universities and out to military facilities 
to recruit CIA agents. We should not even be talking about it.
  This is the Central Intelligence Agency, not Boy Scouts of America, 
not we want everybody to know who we are. These are the individuals 
that go out and head off terrorism. These are the individuals that go 
out and give us the intelligence so that we can stop a 9/11 from 
happening. And so anyone, including Mr. Rove, that thinks that they 
have the prerogative to share with the reporter about someone else's 
wife to try to head off a story, and especially if they work with the 
CIA and they are a secret agent, I am sorry, but I have to be proven 
wrong because I happen to think the latter here.
  I think the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform should 
have Mr. Rove come to the Hill and share with the committee under oath 
what he said and what he did, not say because I believe national 
security is at stake here. And once again, this has nothing to do with 
who is a Democrat and who is a Republican. It has everything to do as 
it relates to the integrity of national security. Period. Dot. There is 
nothing more than you can say about it.
  So for the White House to drag their feet on this and for the 
leadership over here not to demand it, the majority side not to demand 
it, I think we are derelict of duty. I am sorry. But I will tell you 
this: I think by the fact that the gentlewoman from California (Ms. 
Pelosi) has asked for this, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), 
the ranking member of the Committee on Government Reform, asked for 
such a hearing, I think there is no question to the Members of this 
House if the tables were turned and we were in the

[[Page 16027]]

majority, there would be a hearing right here right now. Mr. Rove and 
company would be coming to the Hill to share with Members under oath 
about what he said and what he did not say. Period. Dot.
  That has nothing to do with politics. It has everything to do with 
national security. So when I read accounts in the paper about, well, 
that is just the Democrats taking a shot at the GOP, I am sorry. That 
does not rise to the level of a response for what has happened. So I 
think that the American people definitely should stand up and let their 
Congressman or Congresswoman know that they want to get to the bottom 
of this. This is not about they are donkeys and we are elephants. It 
has nothing to do with party pride. It has everything to do with 
national security.
  I commend our leadership for standing up and saying that we want to 
know more. We need to know more. The American people need to know more, 
and we also need to know why, even today I am sure Mr. Rove is still 
sitting in national security briefings, still getting top secret 
information and has admitted saying that, yes, this man's wife is a CIA 
agent.
  Just today I was in a top secret briefing. Do you think that is 
something I want to share with anyone? Of course not, because it could 
have national security implications. And even if I do not believe that 
it has national security implications to it, it is not my obligation or 
my right to share it with anyone. Period. Dot. That is just the way it 
is. It may very well jeopardize the life of someone or lives of 
individuals that are in harm's way because he wanted to head off a bad 
story. It is just that simple.
  I am sorry for getting a little emotional about it. But when you sit 
for 3-plus years and some Members have sat for 30 years, double-digit 
years, and have received top secret information and have said nothing 
to individuals who do not have the same level of clearance behind 
closed doors of our national secrets, for someone to feel that they can 
go, and I must add unelected, to share with a reporter, trying to head 
off a story, they print stories every day, some good or bad. They call 
it democracy, okay, it happens. You do not have the right to be able to 
do that.
  So I say not only for Mr. Rove but also for the White House, somebody 
better go see the Wizard and get some courage and say we are going to 
come to the Hill; even if we are not asked, we will come to the Hill to 
clean up this situation. Because if it is what I think it is, I 
guarantee you this, the American people are going to demand leadership 
on this, be it in the other body or in this House; but they are going 
to demand leadership, and they are not going to allow individuals just 
because they feel like they want to head off a story and they are going 
to share with a reporter anytime they feel like it.
  If we do not check Mr. Rove right now and people that are like him 
leaking national secrets and outing CIA agents, who is next? Who is 
next? It is like my kids. If I allow my kids to come up and kick me in 
the shin and do nothing about it, I might as well get a shin guard 
because they will kick me every night. So it is important that we 
understand we do not allow those that are walking around with badges, 
that we allow them to go into top secret discussions to share with the 
media when they feel like it
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I think it is important, the 
gentleman makes a tremendous point. We have to ask ourselves, not only 
in this body but around the country, why? Why would Karl Rove do that? 
Why would he out a CIA agent? We know why. Because her husband was the 
ambassador that went to Niger that basically blew up the whole idea 
that the Iraqis had a nuclear weapons program. He eliminated that from 
the argument of why we should go to war with Iraq.
  So he had information that was going to blow it out of the war. They 
stuck it back into the State of the Union address that the President 
gave from right up here, and so the response was to try to destroy 
these people. Is that what we want? Is that how this operation is 
supposed to run, who can destroy who? And now this woman cannot work in 
the same capacity that she used to work in.
  But the reason goes back to the war and the build-up and the drum 
beats that were going for us to go to war in Iraq. And here we were 
trying to say, wait a minute, all of the sudden Iraq is North Korea. 
All of the sudden Iraq is Iran. All of the sudden Iraq has all of these 
nuclear capabilities. No, they did not. And the administration 
manipulated the data and then tried to destroy any person or couple 
that tried to prove otherwise. That is the bottom line and that is not 
a Democrat or Republican issue. That is the fact of the matter.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, we have a couple of more minutes 
left. I want to make sure we do what we always do and give the 
information out, not only to the Members but to make sure everyone 
understands how to get in contact with us. What we are talking to as it 
relates to the letter and the Committee on Government Reform, people 
can go to our Web site, www.housedemocrats.gov/pinkslip. That is 
housedemocrats.gov/pinkslip.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Send us an e-mail if you would like to--
www.30something [email protected]. That is 
[email protected] or you can get us at 
[email protected]/ 30Something.
  Send us your e-mails. Let us know what you think. One of the things 
you need to send us is what you think the priorities in your family are 
or your friends or the people that you hang out with. What are your 
priorities? What should we be doing here? Let us know. We would love to 
hear it.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to 
address the House. I would like to thank the Democratic leader once 
again for the time.

                          ____________________