[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 16297-16303]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor being before the 
House. I would like to thank the Democratic leader for allowing us to 
have one more 30-something Working Group hour. The gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Ryan) will be joining me tonight.
  Mr. Speaker, as we would like to outline at the beginning of every 
30-something, we have come to the floor bringing not only ideas but 
also calling out some of the issues that are not being handled in an 
appropriate way.
  As we explain week after week, the Democrats are in the minority here 
in the House. It is important for everyone to understand that when 
bills are agendaed or non-agendaed, that is because the Republicans are 
in the majority. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, we work every day to make 
sure that we do good work on behalf of the American people, but we also 
make sure that we raise issue when that is not happening.
  And I can tell you as it relates to the whole veterans issue, I am so 
glad to now see the majority side take an opportunity to smell the 
coffee, knowing that our veterans are in need. We have men and women in 
Iraq, in Afghanistan; but the question is not how we treat them and how 
we talk about them here in this Congress and how we tell their families 
that we are with them. It is important that we are with them when they 
come home. When they come home, they need to be able to go to the VA 
hospital or a VA clinic and get service.
  As it stands right now, there are a number of backlogs throughout the 
country, but one thing I can tell you that I am very proud of, Mr. 
Speaker, is the fact that all along the Democratic Caucus raised the 
issue as it relates to veterans affairs issues, not only on the 
substantive standpoint but also on an appropriations standpoint.
  I just want to say that if it were not for the Democrats pushing the 
card and making sure that we are able to get $1.3 billion additional 
supplemental

[[Page 16298]]

funding for 2005, it would not have happened. It took all the way to 
July 12 when the Bush administration admitted that it needed another 
$300 million dollars. It was only at a million. The Senate moved to 
1.5. We still have a gap. There is still work to do.
  When many say, Why do you go to the floor? Why do you raise these 
issues? Why do you share with the Members what they are not doing 
versus what they can do, that is the reason. The reason is making sure 
that we apply the appropriate pressure and making sure that our 
veterans are not left behind. So I am very proud of that. I am very 
glad the 30-something Working Group has taken it on as an issue. We are 
going to continue to stand with and by our veterans and by our troops. 
But at the same time, when they come back, when they go home and when 
they have to live with what they are bringing back from the theater, we 
are there with them because that is the promise we made to them. As far 
as we are concerned at the 30-something Working Group, we will keep 
that promise and make sure we stand up to it.
  Mr. Speaker, another thing that is important. We now have a bill that 
is filed by some Members of the House, H.R. 3304. I think not only for 
the Members but if anyone wants to get a copy of this bill, it is 
www.thomas.loc.gov. But I just want to share some information as it 
relates to this bill.
  It is just privatization all over again. Whichever way you cut it, it 
is just privatization. With this particular bill, it creates private 
accounts and it cuts the guarantees of Social Security benefits and it 
increases the national debt. Period. Dot.
  At the same time, you have the issue of going into the trust fund. 
And contrary to the claims of the bill's sponsors, the legislation does 
not stop the raid of the Social Security trust fund. It does not deal 
with the sovereignty issue of Social Security. I thought that is the 
reason why we were trying to go through this exercise of making sure 
that we can have Social Security around past the 40, 50-some-odd years 
that it would be sovereign. It has nothing to do with it. It has 
everything to do with moving into the private account area.
  This is something we will have to continue to work on. I am hoping 
that the majority side works with the minority side in making sure we 
can come up with a bill. But from the outset, I think it has been 
purely stated that there is really no intention to have a debate or a 
discussion or even working on anything outside of privatization. The 
bill is called private accounts. Period. And that is just what it does. 
It moves it into private accounts. So it is important that the American 
people and also the Members of this House understand that nothing has 
changed. It is just a sponsor, 40-something sponsors on the bill I must 
say on the majority side, and I think people need to be very concerned.
  We talk about 48 million Americans that are taking part in receiving 
Social Security benefits, be it retirement, survivor benefits, or 
disability. Those individuals take part in Social Security, and I think 
it is important we understand that it touches every one of our 
families. So we have to pay very, very close attention to that.
  One other thing I just want to start off with, last week we talked 
about the whole issue of Mr. Rove and we have something from the 
President what he said today, contrary to what he said before. For 
months the President said he would fire anyone involved in the 
disclosure of a CIA agent. Period.
  Today he says that anyone that is caught or is convicted of leaking 
information on a CIA agent would be fired from the White House.
  Now, that is far from what he said before. I am not going after the 
President. I am just saying that the President is saying, hey, I need a 
conviction before I do anything. Even though I said that it is 
something very, very important, I am sticking next to my guy.
  Well, I think we have to look forward to the news heading off or 
reading something in the newspaper saying ``a White House source 
says.'' You might as well get used to it. It gets deeper. It is far 
beyond politics. It goes into national security now. It is okay. It is 
okay. So if you are looking at the statute, the statute, really, it is 
a high bar to leap. And we do not know all we need to know right now. 
And that is the reason why members of governmental oversight have asked 
for Mr. Rove to come to the Hill and share with us what he did say and 
what he did not say. That is simple when it comes down to national 
security.

                              {time}  2145

  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman is exactly 
right. We mentioned this last week when we talked on Thursday on the 
floor that this has more to do with the buildup and the drumbeat and 
the rush to war than it has to do really about Karl Rove leaking and 
everything else.
  To me, from the get-go this has been about this administration 
fudging the intelligence to make it look worse than it was, the threat 
from Iraq to look worse than it actually was. Weapons of mass 
destruction, mushroom clouds in Cincinnati, and all the rhetoric that 
we heard. That is really what this Karl Rove story to me is all about.
  Because why would Karl Rove want to leak information to destroy Joe 
Wilson's wife? Not just for giggles. He did it because the information 
that Joe Wilson came back to the United States with said Iraq does not 
have a nuclear weapons program and there was no sale of uranium, there 
was no overt or covert acts that were going to justify this war. Joe 
Wilson came back and told the truth, and now all of a sudden the White 
House and Karl Rove began to out his wife as a CIA agent. That is what 
this is all about.
  This is about the administration getting called out for giving us bad 
information and not enough people in this Chamber or in the other 
Chamber asking enough questions. That is really, to me, is what the 
leak story is all about. That is the heart of the story: Why would Karl 
Rove want to try to destroy Joe Wilson? Reason: Joe Wilson basically 
outed the administration.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Ambassador Joe Wilson.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Ambassador Joe Wilson outed the administration and 
their rhetoric and lack of hard facts to bring us to war legitimately 
with Iraq.
  Now, we are both on the Committee on Armed Services, and we both 
voted for the defense appropriation budgets, and I think we both voted 
for just about every supplemental to support the troops. We have been 
trying to make sure the troops have the body armor and everything they 
need. It is the Democratic Party that has been talking about funding 
the veterans' benefit system, the VA system, and making sure the 
veterans have the benefits they have earned, these new young soldiers 
and some older soldiers who are coming back and who will take advantage 
of the VA system. We want to make sure that system is there and fully 
funded.
  We support mandatory funding for the VA system, and not just being 
paid at the whim or the discretion of the political season or whoever 
is in charge. Mandatory funding for veterans' benefits, period, 
paragraph, end of story. So we have been the party who has been trying 
to move the ball down the field.
  I think we are finally getting some success from the other side to at 
least admit there is a shortfall in VA funding and trying to get this 
extra $1 billion in. But I think the bottom line is this, my colleague. 
This administration manipulated the intelligence to get us in the war. 
And right, wrong or indifferent about the war, whether we should still 
have gone to try to set up a democracy in the Middle East, like Iraq, 
is a whole other debate, but the bottom line is there were not enough 
people in this Chamber and in the other Chamber who asked enough hard 
questions. That is really why we are where we are today.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. The gentleman said two things, Mr. Speaker, two 
great points that he just made, and I just want to elaborate a little 
more.
  When it comes down to a reason why people voted for us to come to 
Washington to represent them, and the title on our door says U.S. 
Representative of

[[Page 16299]]

the House, U.S. House Representative, that makes us, A, a Member of 
Congress, and that is comprised of the Senate also, but I think it is 
important for us to remember that we were not sent up here to cultivate 
strong relationships over the will of not only our constituents but 
also the American people that are risking their lives overseas right 
now.
  I get very concerned when people start doing funny things, when 
people start saying funny things like, well, if anyone outed a CIA 
agent they are out of the White House, and then progresses to, well, I 
did not really mean that. If someone is convicted of outing a CIA 
agent, that is fine. Now, that bothers me, too.
  One other thing that bothers me as relates to being a representative 
of not only the 17th Congressional District but also Florida, this 
House, when we take a vote, it is for the entire country and not just 
for our district. But I am also concerned about those of us, and I have 
gone to Iraq, who go and take pictures and talk to the troops and have 
lunch with them and do all those things, and I encourage Members to do 
that, but when I went to Iraq it was a life changing experience, and in 
Afghanistan it was a life changing experience, seeing those men and 
women, some older than me, many younger than me, that have put their 
lives on the line and also put their lives on hold to go over and do 
what their country has asked them to do.
  For us to come back here and not work with vigor and commitment to 
make sure that we follow through on our promise to them, it goes far 
beyond making sure that they have the equipment that they need. It goes 
far beyond making sure that the mess hall stays open. What is important 
is making sure that we hold their needs and values as it relates to 
making sure that not only they have what they need in theatre but when 
they get back home that they have what they need.
  So it bothers me when we have to be on the floor having a partisan 
debate on appropriations for veterans. It really does.
  I believe in the whole back-and-forth, and the Republicans are in the 
majority, I am in the minority, and so let us have a great debate. It 
is part of our democracy. But what I am very concerned about is when it 
comes down to issues like national security, when it comes down to 
issues like veterans affairs, when it comes down to issues where we all 
salute one flag, intelligence, I get very concerned when I hear the 
partisanship.
  Health care. We have different views on health care. All right, that 
is fine. Let us go back and forth on that, because we have plans and we 
want to make sure that everyone is able to have health care. They have 
a health savings account, we have a health care plan to make sure that 
we can shut down this emergency room care or the CVS, or Walgreen's, 
you name it, RiteAid care that many families have to live under now.
  But I get concerned when we get to the area of national security and 
a lot of chest beating on this floor and a lot of chest beating in 
committee, and a lot of great speeches back home about how I love the 
troops. I get concerned when they take personal relationships on what 
the leadership says versus what they have to do and what they should be 
doing on behalf of those men and women. That is not a donkey or an 
elephant issue, or whatever the party symbol may be, it is an American 
issue. And it is important we remember that and just cut out the 
partisan politics.
  We have to take them to task here for what we have to work with. That 
is important, too. Some people may get a little irritated and ask why 
are they saying this and why are they saying that? We are saying it on 
behalf of those individuals that are doing what they have to do right 
here, right now, in the present, making sure they have a voice here on 
this floor, making sure that individual is going to the V.A. hospital, 
whether they were a World War II, or Korea, or Vietnam, or you name it. 
I mentioned Grenada the other day. The first Gulf war. You name it. If 
they were in Kosovo, if they were there, they deserve the care. So I 
think it is important.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague is right, and the 
point he made about the President backtracking on what he had said 
before and then relating that to the conversation the gentleman and I 
have had on this floor, I think a million times already, and we have 
not even been in Congress that long, about this issue of consistency. 
This issue of always throwing something out there and stating it as 
fact. Oh, my God, this is just the way it is, then slowly starting to 
backtrack.
  We witnessed it here during the Medicaid prescription drug debate. 
This Chamber was told this bill was going to cost us $400 billion.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Let me correct my colleague. It was $350 
billion.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Right. It started out at $350 billion. Then, by the 
time we were going to vote on this bill, it became $400 billion because 
many of the fiscal conservatives in this Chamber said they would not 
vote for a prescription drug benefit that cost more than that. The 
night we voted on it, we were told $400 billion. After the election, it 
became $700 billion. After we had already voted on it. Later it was 
over $1 trillion, the extended cost of this Medicare prescription drug 
benefit.
  Come to find out, the actuary that had the real numbers was told by 
one of his bosses not to tell the Congress what the real number was. So 
the 700,000 people my colleague represents, the 700,000 people I 
represent were not told the truth and so could not base their decision 
on the real facts because they were covered up so that we would pass 
this. Same thing happened with the war.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. If my colleague would yield, once again, 
relationships over what the American people need to know. It may not be 
what they want to hear, but what they need to know. It is important we 
do not allow those relationships to stand in front of democracy and 
making sure we stand for those we have been sent here to stand for.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. How can we adequately represent our constituents if 
we do not have all the facts? I think that is what we are talking 
about.
  So we have the whole Medicare issue we had to deal with, then the 
war. Everybody knows how the war intelligence went. It was Saddam 
Hussein had something to do with 9/11. Then it was, well, okay, we are 
still going to say that, but some people do not believe it. Remember 
the polls? How long did the polls reflect that most people in America 
thought that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11? And the only 
real reason was because the President and the leaders in this Congress 
kept saying it.
  Then it went from Saddam having something to do with 9/11 to Saddam 
having weapons of mass destruction, and that they were going to be 
administered and executed in a way that there may be a mushroom cloud 
in Cincinnati, Ohio. The President came to Cincinnati and gave that 
speech. Then it became Saddam is a bad guy. Once we pretty much were 
sure there were no weapons of mass destruction, it became Saddam is a 
bad guy. Now we are in this because we need a democracy in the Middle 
East.
  This war has increased the number of terrorists around the world. It 
has put a bull's eye on the back of Western democracies, as we saw 
unfortunately with the tragedy last week in London, which was just a 
real atrocity on civilized societies all around the globe.
  So we have all these issues, and now it is I am going to fire whoever 
it is that has leaked any information. Then, once you find out it is 
your best friend and your top political adviser, it is, well, someone 
has to get convicted before we get rid of them.
  I think the American people are so tired of the Potomac two-step down 
here, always saying one thing and then something else happens, that we 
have to get to work on the real issues that we have before the country. 
Let us be honest with the country. Let us be honest with the people of 
this country. There is nothing the American people cannot deal with if 
they are told the

[[Page 16300]]

truth. Unfortunately, we gloss over everything and make everything look 
good and then backpedal and then they are caught in a lie.
  Just tell the American people the truth and let us go to work. Let us 
get the job done. We have a lot of work to do in this country. 
Unfortunately, we are just not getting the leadership that the American 
people deserve.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Well, I will say this right now, something so 
very, very important to us all. We talk about relationships and knowing 
the truth. The bottom line is that Congress has one of the lowest 
ratings in many years right now because people are very, very turned 
off about what is happening here under this dome. They are not excited 
about what is happening under this dome because there is a lot of 
politics going on, a lot of side shows going on.
  We have issues like education, issues like health care, issues like 
making sure our veterans are getting what they need, the Federal 
government is continuing to spend, spend, spend, and, at the same time, 
there are issues like homeland security.
  We talked about that last week and we said we were going to mention 
something about it, and I am very, very concerned. I am a member of the 
Committee on Homeland Security, ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Management, Integration and Oversight. Once again, I was a little 
bothered by seeing some officials over at the Department of Homeland 
Security immediately after the London transit explosions that took 
place not only on buses but also on rail.

                              {time}  2200

  I cannot help but think about a letter I wrote to the Department. I 
must say, I cosigned it with the chairman and also the ranking member, 
the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), and the chairman of the 
Committee on Homeland Security.
  It is important that Members know as of April 30 there was supposed 
to be a report sent back to this Congress, not me personally, but this 
Congress that was passed in the 9/11 bill making sure that the 
Department shares with us their transportation strategy. That did not 
happen.
  There was another deadline when the Department said it would get that 
transit security strategy to Congress. They did not meet that deadline 
either. As I stand here on the floor tonight, we still do not have a 
transit homeland security strategy back to this Congress.
  If we want to talk about Members, if we want to talk about officials 
over at the Department of Homeland Security, we can do that. We can 
talk about the White House also. But I will tell Members for anyone to 
walk around here and say we are fine, everything will be fine, I will 
tell Members right now, we must have a strategy. I do not want to be a 
Member of Congress telling the American people that we are fine, do not 
worry, our transit oversight and security is what it should be. It is 
not.
  If we do not have something as simple as a transportation strategy, 
then how in the world do we expect the whole country to be in accord as 
relates to making sure every system is secure. The system here in 
Washington, DC, we need to start talking about vulnerabilities here on 
the floor. When you start talking about it, and people say you should 
not say anything about it, they will know. They know. These individuals 
have been caught staking out different areas trying to figure out how 
to do what they do.
  It is not like they are watching 
C-SPAN and saying I did not know that until he just said it. That is 
not the case. These are highly trained, highly educated people, and 
know exactly what they want to do. For us to say we are secure, saying 
we have it covered is less than an understatement.
  The real issue is we need to really make sure that we ratchet it up, 
not only on the Department and the White House, but in this Congress, 
having a sense of urgency. There have been two major events within 12 
months on mass transit outside of the United States, but I can 
guarantee you if we do not get a strategy and the kind of 
accountability that we deserve, and when I say we, we the American 
people deserve, we may very well have a situation far beyond what we 
have. Let us not get started on cargo and planes; let us just talk 
about a simple thing like turning over a strategy to Congress. I would 
hate to be a city police chief or county sheriff. If Congress is not 
getting it, what are they getting? That is the big question.
  I want to make sure that people understand. We can talk about what we 
have, but we have to focus on what we do not have. We have to continue 
here on the minority side, and some of my friends on the majority side, 
to put pressure where pressure is due. We make things happen. I have 
seen things come to this floor far less important than homeland 
security, and in one day. From committee to the floor in one day.
  Now if there is not a sense of urgency on homeland security, be it 
air cargo, containers at the port, making sure that the firefighters 
and police officers have the kind of equipment they need, making sure 
that our health care personnel are appropriately trained, making sure 
that we have a way of making sure that the American people will know 
what to do when a terrorist attack happens or even what to do versus 
duct tape, I think that is far greater.
  I wanted to mention that. I have a couple of other things that we 
have been asking for and needing from the Department and also from the 
administration.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, before we get to that, I think we need 
to talk about a couple of basic principles that we want to implement 
from our side.
  I hate to go back and say this, but at one point before the war, 
before the war, there were some of us who were arguing, and I was in a 
campaign at the time, that $300 billion or whatever that we were going 
to spend, would it not have been better spent here at home with rail 
security, with taking care of the Metro system here in Washington, DC 
and in New York and Boston and some of our bigger cities? Would it not 
have been better, and I offered amendments in the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce, to get the money down to the local 
communities to first responders?
  We have many jurisdictions throughout the country that cannot afford 
to pass police and fire levies and are laying off police and firemen. 
These are the issues that are ultimately going to prevent a terrorist 
attack here on the homeland, by making sure that we have enough first 
responders on the ground, how we are going to react to a biological 
attack, how we are going to respond, is there enough coordination 
between a local police chief, a sheriff, the FBI and the ATF, and is 
there a coordinated response to something that would happen, whether it 
is in Youngstown, Ohio, or Washington, DC or New York City.
  These are the things that we could be working on here and making sure 
that the $300 billion was put to use here in the United States of 
America; and, oh, by the way, it would have been a stimulus for the 
economy as well.
  So in both instances, I think there was a choice to be made. I think 
we are arguing that at least a good portion of that money could have 
been spent here on the homeland to try to achieve some of the 
objectives that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) has stated.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the real issue is making sure we 
are straight with the American people. We have Members on our side and 
the minority staff that are here, and even groups outside of the 
Congress that are willing to give information as it relates to taking 
up 60 minutes here on the floor that could be talking about heroic acts 
on behalf of Americans. But I think we are sent to Congress to make 
sure once again that we give individuals who do not have voices voice.
  In New York you have a great strategy, and rightfully so. Just like 
this Capitol, New York, certain key areas within New York, they are 
terrorist targets internationally because of the financial community, 
just the fact that it is an international community. The rest of the 
country may very well have

[[Page 16301]]

issues, not only in Florida but in Ohio, and receiving the kind of 
attention that it deserves also, making sure we send our dollars where 
those dollars are needed and prevent terrorist attacks from happening.
  April 1 a report was due to Congress. It is not here.
  Second date, July 1, a report was due to Congress. I said the 30th on 
each of one of those earlier, and I want to correct those dates. So 
when folks start talking about you have Members of Congress that are 
legislating and they do not know exactly what the needs are, we do not 
know what the needs are for a national transportation strategy, not 
because we are sitting at home cracking our toes saying the job 
situation looks sad and we have nothing better to do. It is because the 
Department of Homeland Security has not given us what we need on the 
overall transportation strategy. How can one file and put in 
legislation without hearing back from the very Department that has been 
legislatively required to give Congress the information that they need? 
That is majority and minority. That has nothing to do with 
partisanship, and it has everything to do with national security.
  I think it is important for us to use our time wisely. I think it is 
important for us to come here and give voice where there is not a voice 
on these issues, and make sure that people understand that we have to 
be serious about this. It is one thing about having a sense of security 
and another thing about having actual security. We were not sent here 
for a sense of security. We were sent here to secure America and those 
properties that we have throughout this world as they relate to 
embassies and American interests.
  I want to also state that we always talk about what is the 
difference. What is the difference. What is the difference between the 
minority and the majority. I can tell you many instances as it relates 
to homeland security and transportation issues such as our delegate 
here, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), and 
also our chairman, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), who 
serves on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the 
ranking member on the Committee on Homeland Security, the gentleman 
from Mississippi (Mr. Thompson), and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer) who have reintroduced a transit security bill, H.R. 3270, which 
has been included in the Democratic substitute in the homeland security 
authorization bill.
  House Democrats are fighting to make sure that we are able to do the 
things that we need to do, absent the report that we needed. We are 
working with what we have, but I can tell Members, I would hate for an 
event to happen on some transit, mass transit or bus or rail and say, 
well, we knew we had a vulnerability there. We would be very happy to 
share that with the Congress, not only the administration but the 
Department of Homeland Security.
  Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of good people. I had an opportunity to 
go out to the Department during the July 4 break and visit with many of 
the individuals that are working there. They feel like they are serving 
their country, but at the same time they need the leadership to ensure 
that they are able to do the things that they need to do.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman and thank 
him for his leadership on the committee. We obviously have a good 
number of challenges here in the Congress to deal with that. I hope 
that as time goes on we try to shift the focus back here because I 
think we all know that the threats are here. As what happened in 
London, it is scary when home-grown terrorists are the ones causing the 
most strife in your own country. We have to be very careful and very 
vigilant, and part of that is protecting the infrastructure here in 
this country.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to say going back to what we 
were talking about here earlier, we were not sent up here to have great 
relationships and give people a pass. We came up here to represent not 
only the people in our districts, but also the people of the United 
States of America. Sometimes we have to make ourselves uncomfortable.
  I have a great relationship with those that are in leadership in the 
Department of Homeland Security, but my job as a Member of Congress and 
also ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight, Management and 
Integration goes far beyond those relationships. I think that anyone 
that may take issue with the fact that we are talking about a 
congressional, federally mandated report to Congress so we will know 
what we need to know when we need to know it so we can legislate in the 
appropriate way, to be able to address the needs of not only the 
Department of Homeland Security, but all of the way down to the village 
sheriff, that firefighter that is trying to make sure that they have 
what they need, and to that transit worker running that train or bus, 
that is what we have to do.
  We have to get out of our comfort zone and make sure that we do what 
we need to do. We cannot allow relationships to jump in front of 
homeland security.

                              {time}  2215

  We cannot allow relationships to jump in front of what we need to do 
as it relates to making sure that our veterans get what they need 
because back at the ranch we are pounding our chests, the troops and 
all, but when they get back they cannot even get an appointment at the 
VA. So do not love me, lights, cameras, action, and then drop me off 
and leave me after the cameras are gone, when I get back home facing 
the real issues, trying to find a job, trying to pay some of these 
bills that I was not able to address while I was over there fighting on 
behalf of my country, doing what I was told. Do not leave me.
  So that is why we are here, to make sure that those individuals are 
heard, how strong or weak or whatever their voice may be, because in 
many instances they are single parent families. In many instances they 
could be two-parent families, but the bottom line is making sure that 
we in this Congress stand by what we said we would do for them. So I go 
back to that issue of relationships.
  Are we here to cover for our friends or are we here to represent the 
American people, bottom line, period? I do not care if one is a 
Democrat or a Republican. Are they hear to represent the American 
people or are they here to cover for their friends? So we need to make 
sure when we raise our hand at the beginning of every Congress to 
uphold the Constitution of the United States, we remember that, not 
uphold our friendship with our friends and making sure that we cover 
for them when they do something wrong. That is not what it is about. It 
is about making sure that we do what we have to do as constitutional 
officers.
  I just had to share that.
  I see the gentleman has that national debt there, and I yield to the 
gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and appreciate 
his words, and I think as we start to wrap up here and are getting near 
the end of the fourth quarter of our time, I think it is important that 
everything that we talked about tonight, whether it was veterans 
benefits, homeland security, the war, I think all of this in one way or 
another gets back to Social Security, gets back to what is the United 
States economy going to be like in the next couple of decades. And I 
think that is the one issue that is not being addressed here that would 
have ramifications on all of these other topics that we have been 
talking about. And if we do not figure out a way to get the U.S. 
economy up and running again, we are going to continue to sit here and 
have debates about our national debt at $7.8 trillion or the $27,000 
that every citizen owes to the government and high tuition costs and 
not enough money to pay for the VA benefits and how are we going to 
compete, wages are stagnant. What is the plan? What is the agenda here 
in this Congress and at the White House and in the Senate to address 
the issue of stagnant wages?
  We hear a lot about globalization and trade, and I do not think 
either of us

[[Page 16302]]

are saying we are going to start building walls up and putting them up 
around the country because we know that is not possible, but are we 
making the proper investments into education, into lowering college 
tuition costs and into making sure that everybody can afford to get an 
education?
  And I was just looking at a recent article in Fortune Magazine, and 
if we do not get this problem figured out here in the next few years, 
we are going to be in big trouble. I just want to share these with the 
Members: College graduates, which will be the engine for any kind of 
economic growth over the next 2 decades, in China 3.3 million college 
graduates, in India 3.1 million college graduates, and in the U.S. 1.3 
million. I recognize that they have a lot more people than we have, and 
this is not ethnocentric or any other kind of derogatory remark. I 
think the Chinese and the Indians are doing what they need to do to be 
competitive. What are we doing? College tuition probably doubled in 
Florida just like it doubled in Ohio over the past few years, 4 or 5 
years. Engineering graduates: China, 600,000; India, 350,000; in the 
U.S., 70,000.
  If we want to fix the veterans problem, if we want to fix the issue 
of national debt, if we want to have money to have a strong military, 
and Governor Mitt Romney was before the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce about 3 or 4 weeks ago, and he was testifying, and he said 
something that was very enlightening, that if we want to have a top 
tier military, we have to have a top tier economy to be able to fund 
it. And we could talk about going to Afghanistan and going to Iraq and 
all the troubles we have with South Korea. China had a professor make a 
very interesting statement about using nuclear weapons against the 
United States and causing great damage to cities here in the United 
States of America over the issue of Taiwan. I mean we have all these 
little fires burning, and if we are going to be able to keep our 
military strong and continue to fund the military, which we are doing 
now but we are doing it at the expense of education, health care, 
making sure our veterans have the proper health care and benefit 
systems that they need. So are we going to be able to lead the world 
with a second tier economy? No. And it is getting very competitive.
  And just in Ohio the No Child Left Behind Act is underfunded by $1.5 
billion. Thousands and thousands of kids live in poverty. They are not 
going to go to school and learn if they live in poverty. They are not 
even eating properly, let alone going to school and focusing and 
concentrating and figuring out algebra and trigonometry and physics. It 
has got to be the commitment here, and I think if there is one issue 
that we are going to address, it has got to be the issue of economy, 
jobs, and education, and therefore these people will go out and create 
the kind of wealth that we need, generate the kind of tax revenues we 
need to make sure our veterans have their health care and to make sure 
that health care is provided to every citizen in the country and other 
people can afford to go to college.
  So all the issues that we talked about here, reducing the debt, 
veterans, transit safety, homeland security, all the issues the 
gentleman is working on, Medicare, prescription drug, and all these 
other things, we have got to figure out. And I think the levers have 
been pulled by the other side for a long time. They have tried their 
supply-side economics again for the second time in the past couple of 
decades, and it has been great for a very small number of people, but 
in Youngstown, Ohio and Akron, Ohio and all over the State, wages are 
stagnant but tuition costs are doubled, property taxes are going up to 
fund mental health levies and school levies and everything else, police 
and fire levies, sales tax. Counties are going bankrupt. This has not 
worked for everybody, and until we all figure out, regardless of party, 
how we are going to fix this problem, we are going to be slowly 
dropping and we are not going to be able to meet our military 
commitments around world, which I think is the most dangerous aspect of 
it.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the gentleman 
was saying we are having trouble with North Korea, but I noticed he 
said South Korea.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I am sorry.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. We have troops in South Korea, not in North 
Korea, but I just want to make sure. We have to watch out for one 
another, but I can tell the gentleman this: It is a relationship, but 
we watch out for one other in the right way, not in the wrong way.
  But regarding something the gentleman pointed out, I was in the State 
legislature for 8 years before I got here, served 4 in the Florida 
House, 4 in the Florida Senate, and I can tell the Members it was one 
of the best public jobs I have ever had outside of being a State 
trooper in Florida. And I can tell the gentleman this: We used to 
really dislike it when the Congress did what it is doing now. It is 
called devolution of taxation, and what I mean by devolution of 
taxation is it is saying that not only are we going to cut taxes up 
here for the very, very wealthy, I mean we are not talking about the 
super, super majority of our constituents. We are talking about the 
very, very wealthy individuals. But we are going to pull back on the 
federal commitment to the States financially. So when we send fewer 
dollars to the States, what do they have to do? They have to pass on 
the unfortunate duty of passing that on to the local county 
governments, the local city governments, the village council, name it. 
The most vulnerable individuals within the State budget are students. 
So that is the reason why we spend a lot of time, this 30-something 
Working Group, in making sure that young people know exactly what is 
happening to them versus what is happening for them because more and 
more things are happening to them, Mr. Speaker, and I can tell the 
Members this also: Another reason why we spend so much time talking 
about Iraq veterans' benefits is because 70 percent of the individuals 
that are coming back from Iraq or that are in Iraq now are under the 
age of 30. They are there fighting. So we have to make sure that they 
have a voice. So this whole devolution of taxation is saying, Oh, well, 
you are going to get a $50 check from the Federal Government, run out 
to Bennigan's and do what you do or save that $50 and you will have 
something one day, down to the State government where they have to cut 
and raise tuition. Guess what? Someone may say, Well, those kids, they 
need to learn how to save their money and pull themselves up by their 
bootstraps; I did. I can tell the Members this right now: The average 
college student is coming out $20,000 in debt right now, and the reason 
why they are coming out $20,000 in debt is because Pell grants are not 
what they used to be, the State commitment and scholarships for kids to 
go to school are not what they used to be. In my State, we have the 
Bright Future Scholarship that is supposed to provide a full ride for 
students, and they have it over in Georgia too. As a matter of fact, we 
in the State legislature worked with Georgia, and it was tied into the 
lottery and all of that. But it is not what it used to be. Not because 
the kids are not learning. It is because the State government can no 
longer support good behavior on behalf of our future generations, 
academic good behavior. So when we are up here pounding and talking 
about what we are going to do and it is their money and we are going to 
cut it, well, there are very few individuals that are receiving a true 
tax cut; and, Members could talk to anyone in this country and I 
guarantee them there has been some sort of millage hike or some 
referendum on building schools, not because all of a sudden we want to 
tax ourselves to build schools. It is because the federal commitment is 
not what it should be.
  So when we talk about those issues and we start talking about future 
generations, we cannot help but think about what happens in this 
Chamber and across the hall and what happens in the White House because 
we are the individuals where this whole public taxpayer dollar starts 
from. So if we cut it, they are going to pay it either on the State 
level or they are going to pay it on the county level or on the city 
level.

[[Page 16303]]

  No Child Left Behind, let me just mention something. We have Texas 
that is suing the Federal Government over No Child Left Behind unfunded 
mandates. I am just going to leave it at that. There are other States 
that have joined in in suing the Federal Government. The National 
Governors' Association, I invite the Members to go to their website and 
see how they feel about what we are doing on No Child Left Behind. They 
wish they could come up here and get on this floor and grab a voting 
card and really make something happen on behalf of States. We say we 
want accountability. Then doggone it, we had better send the money.
  So when we start talking about the difference, No Child Left Behind 
was a bipartisan piece of legislation. I mean we had individuals over 
in the Senate and individuals here, ranking members hugging and press 
conferences and all because we all believed that we were going to do 
actually what we said that we were going to do, that the level of 
commitment, federal commitment, as it relates to the dollar, not only 
the interest but the dollar will go to the States and also to the local 
school boards. That has not happened. It is miserably underfunded, and 
that is the reason why we come to the floor to talk about not only the 
difference. I do not want to talk about it. I want to see some action, 
and the only way that is going to happen is unless the American people 
start to say, Mr. Speaker, I am not happy with what I have.
  That is the reason we come to the floor. We come to the floor to make 
sure that the American people know and the Members of this Congress 
know we have to rise to a higher occasion as it relates to what we have 
to do on behalf our constituents.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, it is not even just the taxes either, 
which I think the tax rate and the amount people are paying now has 
significantly increased, but I think it is important also to talk about 
the health care issue that I think went up about 50 percent since 
President Bush got in office, with no real plan.
  We hear a lot about health care savings accounts. Those are great if 
they have enough money to put in them every month. If they have a 
little disposable income, they start a health care savings account. But 
a lot of people are living paycheck to paycheck. They do not the money 
to put into a health care savings account.

                              {time}  2230

  The issue we need to address is health care costs with information 
technology and preventative care and stop using the emergency rooms as 
clinics, because they are not; and it is the most inefficient way to 
run the kind of health care system that we are running here. Again, 
another major issue that is swing and a miss.
  Swing and a miss on the economy; swing and a miss on health care; 
swing and a miss on making the proper investments in education, at 
least the funding side of things. I agree, it was great to see the 
gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and Ted Kennedy with 
President Bush saying this is the way to move forward with education. 
But if the money and resources are not there, things become 
problematic.
  So the bottom line is, and I think what we are trying to say here, as 
we wrap it up, we have got a lot of issues, but we need to focus on 
some of these core issues, about the economy, investments to make sure 
that we are producing enough engineers and computer scientists to 
compete with these other countries who are focusing on those kind of 
issues, having a national program.
  I think the space program and going to the Moon was a lot more about 
getting people educated and into corporate America and into our 
universities than it was actually putting somebody on the Moon. That 
was the goal. But we need something like that. We need something, some 
national goal that is going to set and coordinate our efforts here, to 
inspire young children to study math, to study science, to become 
engineers and contribute to the economy. We have to generate a lot of 
wealth.
  We are going to be losing a lot of wealth because of the outsourcing. 
These jobs are moving to China and India, they are moving to Ireland, 
they are moving to these other countries; and if we are going to keep 
our status as a tier-one economy so that we can have a tier-one 
military, we have to make these investments. You do not hear that word 
``investment'' used much around here anymore.
  Just drop us e-mail. It will be interesting to hear what people who 
are out there watching think that the priorities should be here in the 
United States Congress: 30something [email protected].
  I thank the gentleman for allowing me to join him here tonight and be 
part of this great debate. I thank him for his leadership on the 
Committee on Homeland Security. I know that, unfortunately, it is going 
to be a focus more and more for our country and this Congress. I thank 
the gentleman for his leadership.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I want to thank 
the gentleman for pointing out not only the importance of future 
generations, but also we talked about tonight the issue of 
relationships versus what we are sent up here to do.
  This issue of homeland security, the gentleman knows we are working 
on a piece of legislation as it relates to disclosure to the American 
people. I think that is important also as it relates to some financial 
issues.
  But we appreciate the gentleman's representation of his fine district 
in Ohio. We hope that we can work in a bipartisan way on many pieces of 
legislation.
  The whole issue as it relates to private accounts, the name ``private 
accounts'' lets us know on this side of the aisle that the majority 
side has already decided on what it is going to be. We know what 
private accounts are going to bring. We have to continue to fight.
  That is why we come to the floor, not only to talk about the 
difference, but to talk about the will to lead in the areas we need to 
lead.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank not only the Democratic leader, the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), but the leadership, the 
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and all the way to our Democratic 
Caucus, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez) and also the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn) and others for allowing us 
to come to the floor one more time.

                          ____________________