Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to address the House once again. I am glad that we are here back in the people's capital of the United States to represent those that sent us up here to represent them.

This hour is designated by the Democratic Leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), and the rest of our leadership on the Democratic side, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), also the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), our vice chair of our caucus; and week after week we come to the floor to share with Americans issues that are facing not only them, but also this country.

I can tell you that we appreciate the fact that the leader had enough foresight and insight to know that not only those of us that are in the 30-something Working Group, but young Americans, have to have a voice in this process.

As you all know, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and a number of other issues that have faced the Nation since we recessed for the summer to go back to our districts to also take care of other congressional business, there is a lot that has happened for and to Americans. I think it is important for us to just reflect a little bit on what has happened as it relates to Hurricane Katrina.

Tonight I am joined not only by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), but also the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), who is my neighbor in Florida and representing south Florida. The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) and I, both our districts were touched by Hurricane Katrina as a Category 1 storm, but not as a Category 5, some may say 4, that hit the gulf coast area; and our hearts go out to those individuals that are going through the process.

I think tonight not only are we going to talk about the issues that are facing many of these families, but many of them are young families, many of them are elderly; and because of the mistakes and the failures in some part of our emergency management agency and other responding agencies, there was loss of life that could have been prevented. I think we should take this in a very serious way. The responsibility of this Congress, one, is to ask the questions and to make sure it does not happen again.

I do commend not only the Democratic leader for recommending that there be a task force or a select committee to deal with the issue of the recovery process and to be able to review the whole Hurricane Katrina experience, but I am glad that the Speaker has taken her recommendation and moved on it and they will appoint a task force to deal with this issue, because I think it needs the kind of oversight to make sure that we do not make the victims victims over again because we thought that it was important to appropriate some $50 billion-plus towards the recovery effort without the appropriate oversight to make sure that it gets where it is supposed to be.

Mr. Speaker, I also feel, before I yield to my colleagues, that it is important that we all understand that we are in the first 2 minutes of the first quarter, if this were a football game, as it relates to the recovery process. I think the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) and other Members from States that are constantly hit by hurricanes understand that we are in the very early stages.

We know that a number of Americans have been turned off by the recovery and the response, and there will be a time and place to be able to identify that. That time is now, that time is also in the future, but also to make sure that we do not continue to fumble the ball.

When I say ``we,'' I think it is important to understand that we do have an

executive branch that has the responsibility for appointing responsible individuals to carry out the task that we legislate for here in this Congress, and that we make sure that they have the dollars, A, that is the question as relating to levees and other preventative measures that could have prevented loss of life; and, B, making sure that there are individuals that can make the decision without an act of Congress to go in and save lives in a timely manner.

So, I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that we are here. I am glad that the 30- something Working Group, that one thing that not only the Democratic Caucus can count on, but also this Congress can count on, we will come here week after week to make sure that the American people know what they need to know and make sure that this Congress also hears the voices of those that cannot be heard here.

I have some information, but I am going to yield to my colleagues, A, talking about the process on what are the programs that are available to Americans, because, Mr. Speaker, I feel those that are victims, and I am talking about in the tens of thousands, that are victims, some are in shelters, but, guess what? Many have been taken in by their family members and friends throughout the country. Maybe FEMA, maybe the State government, maybe the local government has not been able to locate these individuals to let them know what they are eligible for.

If they left their home in the middle of a storm trying to swim out of their home and the water is over the roof, they may not know they are eligible for assistance from the very government they have been paying taxes through the noses to over the years. So as it relates to their home and as it relates to their job, to even making sure they are able to receive the kind of counseling, their children receive counseling, it is important that we tell them and break it down to the point that they can understand. If they have a problem as it relates to getting that information, that is what their Member of Congress is for.

So we have people throughout this country, we have the list of how many people are displaced in different States, but how many of those individuals cannot be reached. Hopefully, we will reach family members and loved ones that can share with them their rights, so that they will be able to take advantage of some of the assistance that has been provided thus far.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I yield to my good friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz).

I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that everyone understand that Homeland Security Director, the FEMA Director, or the President of the United States can reverse an original decision by FEMA not to pay individual homeowners or assist individual homeowners who do not have insurance, that are eligible for Federal programs. It is almost like saying that we have the antidote for their problem, but there are only 200 or 300 people affected and we have to get to 800 before we can help them.

I mean, it does not make sense, and because of that we have asked the President, and a bipartisan letter has gone to not only the President but also to the FEMA Director and also to the Department of Homeland Security Secretary, about looking at this very small issue. But I can tell the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) that if there are issues of the very obvious, what happens under a $50-plus billion dollar appropriations to an agency that cannot see that there is a need out there that needs to be met?

Let me tell the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) when Americans pay their taxes, they expect a response in times such as this. They do not expect bureaucratic lip service. They expect action. And I just want to make sure the people are clear on this. Folks may say, well, you know, you all are there and you all are Democrats and all, and it is your job to be able to point out everything that is wrong. That is incorrect. And I know the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) is from the heart of America, this, that, and the other; but the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) and I are from the South, and I think this is an issue about how this country feels about the South, how they feel about people that live in the South.

I will tell my colleagues this: maybe in another part of the country the response would have been different, but I can tell the Members right now there are a lot of individuals that are down there that pay taxes just like anyone else that expects representation. I do not know, maybe this lady may be a Republican. She may be an Independent. We do not care. She needs assistance.

And the bottom line is that FEMA is supposed to be there in a time of need. The Federal Government is supposed to be there in a time of need. When the local government resources are out or depleted or coming close to being depleted, that is why we have a Federal Government. They are not independent countries out there. Louisiana is not by itself. Alabama is not by itself, and I can guarantee my colleagues that Mississippi is not there by itself. So

why should they be treated any differently than any other part of the country?

The bottom line I feel is what is the Federal obligation to the South? What is it? And I feel that we really do not have to paint a picture for Americans. We really do not. They have seen it. And they saw folks having press conference after press conference talking about what the situation is. They say, We knew that 5 or 6 days ago. And what my colleague was talking about with the hurricane director, they knew. They were just hoping that the levees held.

But I think it is outstanding that the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) brought pictures here tonight, because when we talking about the 30-something Working Group, third-party and fourth- party validators are important because we have folks who take to the floor saying, Well, it is not what some people tell you that it is. Do you believe us or your lying eyes? We see it on television.

The reason I talked about information, that it is important that we disseminate information, I want the Members and the American people to see what we get in the U.S. Congress. We get one sheet of paper talking about a recovery process. Like my cousin used to say, If I am lying, I am flying. The bottom line is that this came out as Congressional Advisory No. 8, September 6. This is yesterday's advisory. Today is like three quarters of a page. I thought I would at least get a full- page report. It is just bullets and feel-good language, not telling us anything.

I just want to take this little segment out here while we are talking about the major inequities here, and hopefully, Mr. Speaker, hopefully, someone will say we need to correct this. Not only should we provide more information to Members of Congress but we should also make sure we provide information to more victims.

This is what it is: the Housing Task Force, whoever they are, are also identifying long-term housing facilities to assist disaster victims as quickly as possible. What is ``quickly as possible''? Do I pay my taxes as quickly as possible, or do I have a date to pay my taxes?

Here is the other issue: assuring that security and order to the impact areas, maintaining law and order is a priority to assist recovery and evacuation efforts, deliver relief in a timely and effective manner.

This is stuff that one puts on their Web site when they are selling cookies.

The bottom line is we have people that we have not even found yet. I am talking about FEMA or whatever the case may be. But here is the issue: we must assume nothing. And I tell my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and I have said this before and they all have heard me, I do not care if they are Republican, Independent, Democrat. They need to go see the wizard and get some courage and say, listen, it is not working and we need to make it work, not going down there and walking around for a day saying, well, you know they are doing the best they can do, because folks are hurting.

So we have got to get this information out. We have got to make sure that this lady and other folks are able to get the assistance that they pay taxes for. So if I have anything to contribute here tonight, and I have some other information, and I see that the gentleman from Ohio is looking at me, but if I have anything else to contribute here tonight, I want to make sure this Congress understands. Here is a question for the Congress and for the Federal Government: What commitment do you have to the people that are living in the South? That is what I want to know. I want to know is it lip service or is it for real? And I can tell the Members right now from what I am seeing, there are no recommendations for a national day of mourning. People have died in this thing, and we are finding more people. There are no recommendations to go down to the South and have a joint session of Congress. It is beyond a natural disaster. A lot of it is failure of government.

I am coming in for a landing. There was a letter that was written today to a chairman of a major committee here of serious questions that were asked. Could New Orleans' levee system hold? The budget of the Corps of Engineers for construction projects in New Orleans District was cut over 40 percent between 2001 and 2005 apparently to free up funds for the war in Iraq and homeland security projects.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to finish, and then I am going to go back over it again.

In 2004, for the first time in 37 years, the first time in 37 years, the Corps of Engineers halted all work. They stopped all work on the New Orleans levee system. Not because they felt like it. It was because they did not have any money. I am on the Committee on Homeland Security and we knew, and I know the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) has information that they went through a whole exercise about what if this happens. They knew it could happen. So when someone lines up in front of a camera and starts talking, I do not care who they are. I was emancipated many years ago; so I do not care what some may feel about what I say here tonight. The bottom line is if it is the President or the village council person or whoever it might have been as it relates to holding back funds from the levee system, saying this was a natural disaster, what could we do, we could have governed in a way that we should govern on behalf of individuals in the South that pay taxes just like anyone else.

And the bottom line is if it was not for Katrina, Mr. Speaker, we would have been voting here on the estate tax for a huge tax break, to even make the reality even more evident that the Corps of Engineers never would have had started work on the levee system next year or the year after that or the year after that because we have no money.

The same letter here that I read from earlier, I just want to read another paragraph out of the letter to the committee chairman from Ranking Member Waxman and also Ranking Member Oberstar and Thompson of the Committee on Homeland Security and the Committee on Government Reform and also the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

The President said, I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees. But just the opposite is true. Multiple reports have predicted that a large hurricane could overflow the levees and cause massive damage in New Orleans. Both the Red Cross and FEMA ranked a hurricane in New Orleans as the Nation's most dangerous natural disaster threat.

I am going to tell my colleagues, this is well documented. Senator Breaux, who is retired, came out of retirement and jumped on TV 2 days after the storm saying, Excuse me, I am sorry, I just, I do not know what folks are talking about when they say they did not know this was going on. I mean, year after year, we tried to get money from the Federal Government. His entire congressional career was based on getting money for the levees. That is why some folks started talking about, well, you know, they are here talking all that mess, and we are trying to save lives, they are talking about what is not happening.

Let me tell my colleagues what we are doing here tonight. We are saving lives, literally. We are saving lives here and pointing out the inequities of an

agency that we just gave $10-plus billion to and said, You handle it, okay? And the bottom line is that just as upset as Americans were about 9/11 and the loss of life, they need to be upset about Katrina and the loss of life and the lack of oversight in governance. The bottom line, period, dot.

So I think any American life that is lost when it could have been prevented deserves to be brought to the highest levels of Congress on both sides of the aisle. I am beyond partisanship right now. This is about responsibility. And the bottom line is, if the tables were turned and there was a man in the White House that had a Democrat, had a ``D'' behind his name, we could not stop the line of Republicans out the door to talk about what he or she did not do when they were supposed to do it and how they were supposed to do it.

So the bottom line is this: What are we going to do? I do not have a family member, God bless, in this situation, but there are people that do. And guess what? They may not be a Member of Congress. We have to give voice to those individuals.

What commitment does the Federal Government have to the people that are living in the South? That is the question. That is the bottom line. I do not care if they are a chairman, ranking member, somebody elected them over something in this Congress. The bottom line is, What is the commitment to the South? Because that is the only thing that I can point out, I say to my colleagues; I cannot come out with anything else.

Maybe the folks down there do not talk as fast as other folks, I do not know. Maybe they do not have endowed universities like we have in the North and in the central part of this country, I do not know. Maybe there are individuals that do not necessarily care about infrastructure and look at the warnings as it relates to New Orleans. Now it has happened.

The question is, what are we going to do about these individuals who are living in football stadiums and folks think it is okay for them to be there for 6 months. You can reach over and touch the next person in your bed. Do we have sex offenders living in the same stadium on the 50-yard line or the 60-yard line from a child? These are the things that we have to correct. These are the things that we must pay attention to. We cannot allow it to happen, or they will be made victims time after time and again.

So the bottom line is that we have individuals that are displaced. We have a Federal agency that we are about to give $50-plus billion, and I guarantee my colleagues that there will be no real discussion about oversight.

There will be no real action. I will guarantee, we will not stand by and watch this administration get this money and start handing out contracts to their buddies.

And making individuals victims again. Because I guarantee, and I told you this earlier today, I may be in some retirement community at 80, if God is willing, walking around with a walker, and someone looks back in the history books about what took place at this time in the moment, and they look at me and they say well, were you not a Member of Congress at this time? What were you doing? I will tell them refer to the Congressional Record and also reflect on what happened and what the American people did because they knew what these individuals were doing and making these individuals victims again.

Now, do not get me wrong. I am not saying that it is intentional. But I guarantee you for folks who do not look and wear the flag of oversight and making sure that this never ever happens again, folks talking about never ever happen again. Let us stop the bad from happening. And the only way we are going to stop the bad from happening is governing in the way that we are supposed to govern.

And you know something, I say to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), we are in a bad situation. We have constituents that are hurt. We have constituents that are raising money and doing those things and sending truckloads and giving to the American Red Cross and to the Salvation Army and to the NAACP and all the other groups that have relief funds. There are kids throughout this Nation that are giving lunchboxes and giving toys and all of these different things and running around.

Meanwhile, the big kitty, the $50-plus billion we are running around here on a hush hush kind of thing and Members barely know what is going in the bill, what oversight is there. Where will it go? No one has been removed for a more qualified individual to be placed in a position that can continue the response and the recovery.

We are in the first quarter of this recovery and we know that our quarterback is not up to the task to be able to make it to the goal line. The FEMA Director, possibly the Homeland Security Secretary, possibly the individual in the White House that is quarterbacking the administrative moves on behalf of the White House, we need to call them in. We need to call time out, and we need to change our personnel for individuals that not only carry the resume but have the wisdom to be able to carry it out.

And you know, I am on the Homeland Security Committee, and I know these individuals. I sit down and talk to them. I have gone to the Department of Homeland Security. But guess what? This is not about personalities. This is about governance. And it is not personal. It is just business, and the business of saving lives and making sure that these individuals are made whole as much as possible. And we have got to correct it, not now but right now.

I would say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) and the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) I just wanted to go over a couple of these programs that FEMA has available for individuals that are in the Federal disaster area, those States that have been designated by the President. There are a number of grants and I just want to make sure, and also low-interest loans, and if anyone wants assistance as it relates to those, you can call and just ask the question. The operators will go over it with you. They are working 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. You can call 1-800-621-FEMA, F- E-M-A, and that is 3362. So that is 1-800-621-3362 to register. If you are hearing impaired, you will dial the TDY line, which is 1-800-462- 7585. I am going to read that other number over again. 1-800-621-3362. If you are hearing impaired, 1-800-462-7585. They also have an online, you can reach FEMA through FEMA acronym, FEMA.gov/register. That is again 24-hour grant. They also have 24-hour you can get the grant information. And many of the family members may have to get it on behalf of the other family members because they may not be in an area where they can receive that information. You have to help your family and friends through this process, even though government is reaching out to them.

The individual housing grants that are also available, this is the primary vehicle of assistance that FEMA provides to individuals. Also what that individual grant information does, it provides you with a voucher for short-term housing. Each individual can get up to $26,200 per individual or household. And I think that is important. And we will give you more information in the coming days on that.

Disaster unemployment relief. This program, with acronym of DUA, provides benefits to individuals that were previously employed or self- employed that have been made jobless because of a direct result of the major disaster which will be Katrina, that are not eligible for regular Federal or State unemployment insurance. I think that is important. But I still urge Americans and also Members to encourage their constituents to go after these programs.

Dislocated worker activities, this is a program that provides training and also related assistance to persons that have lost their jobs that are unlikely to return back to their current job or industry. That is important for individuals that are throughout the country.

I just want to be able to add in the last couple of minutes here, we have folks that are all over the country, that are literally all over the country. And I am coming back to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

In Alabama, there are some 5,017 individuals; Arkansas, 5,534. I am just reading out some of the big numbers. Louisiana there are a lot of people still there, 67,000 individuals. So there are a number of programs that are available. I urge you to go to the FEMA Web site or even call them. Mr. Ryan, do you want to give the Web site information?

Well, on behalf of the 30-something Working Group, we would like to thank the Democratic leader, Mr. Speaker, for allowing us to come here to the floor once again, and it was an honor addressing the House once again.

Mr. Speaker, after seeing the heart-wrenching images of so many of our fellow Americans in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama who have lost everything and are unfed, thirsty, suffering from oppressive heat in unsanitary conditions and waiting in desperation for help from their government, this bill is a truly no-brainer.

Every American is united in the heart-felt desire to help the hundreds of thousands who are literally crying out for assistance. $10.5 billion is not nearly enough to get the job done, even in the short term. So far, judging from the horrible suffering of thousands of people that Americans see every night on their television screens, our government has not been handling this crisis very well.

I hope that this money will have some impact in finally getting some aid to the needy. Before Katrina, who among us would have thought that Americans would be begging for food and water and become refugees in our own country? Yet that is exactly what has been happening for days in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. Thousands of these people are within blocks of aid, but for days no aid has been provided to them.

However, it is not enough to simply vote for funding bills. We have to make sure that the relief money we are appropriating today and that we will be appropriating in the weeks, months and years ahead actually gets to the victims, and is not skimmed off by fast-buck artists and unscrupulous contractors.

This crisis is so enormous and so devastatingly serious that it is without precedent in our history. For these reasons, we need to get out of a ``business as usual'' frame of mind and implement some bold new approaches to helping our people in their time of dire need.

First, the Speaker should immediately create a Task Force or Special Committee with the power to cut across overlapping jurisdictional lines to prevent duplication and expedite needed legislation. This Committee should draw on and coordinate the expertise of the House standing committees in the areas of public health, housing, food and nutrition, safety, social services, energy, transportation and commerce. There is precedent for this approach. In 1977, Speaker O'Neil set up the Ad Hoc Committee on Energy, with legislative authority to deal with the energy crisis. I think we should use the same approach today.

Second, Congress should provide additional resources to the office of the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security to help insure that the hundreds of billions of dollars that will likely be necessary to care for our people and rebuild our country are not wasted through fraud, abuse, overpayments or ineffective government management.

We have many good reasons for concern about wasteful spending. In the three years since the Department of Homeland Security was created, numerous reports by the Congress, the Department's Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office have detailed instance after instance of contracting deficiencies, fraud, wasteful or lavish spending, lax oversight and management, procurement shortcomings, blurred lines of responsibility and lack of accountability.

In addition, the case of U.S. government spending in Iraq is instructive in what we don't want to do in the hurricane areas, where multi-billion-dollar contracts were given to big companies like Halliburton with little oversight or accountability. Pentagon investigators found over one quarter of a billion dollars in unacceptable or unsupported charges by Halliburton in a contract they had to restore Iraqi oil. Hundreds of millions more in other contracts have simply disappeared or cannot be accounted for.

These practices have not only cheated the taxpayers, but they cheat the people who need help from getting the benefits that these funds should have provided.

I believe that this Congress must make sure, to the greatest extent possible, that the funds that we are appropriating today and in the coming months to help the Hurricane Katrina victims are directly squarely at helping the victims and not those who seek to profit at the expense of the victims.

Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of trade. Since I came to Congress, I have voted for free trade agreements with Australia, Chile, Morocco, and Singapore.

There has been a lot of exaggeration about the benefits and the problems that would be attributable to DR-CAFTA, but I look at this agreement in a larger context.

First, I believe that the Bush Administration has never done enough to provide Florida businesses with the government services they need to expand, develop new markets, and operate efficiently, especially with regard to Miami International Airport, which is the single largest employer in Miami-Dade County.

Second, we know the state of Florida lost 35,000 jobs after the passage of NAFTA. While some Florida businesses will benefit from DR- CAFTA, I don't believe the gain in new business will be as pronounced as proponents have claimed, and I am deeply concerned about the impact on some industries, like sugar.

Third, I believe that it is unjust to include the Dominican Republic in this trade agreement while excluding Haiti. The Administration had the opportunity to promote stability, job growth and democratic government in Haiti last year with the HERO bill, but the President was never fully committed to the legislation and the opportunity was lost.

I think it is disingenuous of the President to now claim that the passage of DR-CAFTA is essential for the growth of democracy in the hemisphere when he passed up the opportunity to help Haiti with both of these trade bills.

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 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).

Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, how about the baby that was just born an hour ago? What do they owe?

How about the individual that is retired, veterans who have served our country?

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?

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.

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.

For doing what? For doing the right thing.

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 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.

You love your charts.

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.

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.

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 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

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.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House. I would like to thank the Democratic leader once again for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly support Title II of H.R. 458, the Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act. Title II's provisions are especially important as they will help prevent high-cost military lenders from preying on the men and women who are serving in our Armed Forces.

This important measure provides needed protections for military borrowers from various

types of high-cost lenders, including for example, finance companies, title lenders and small loan companies.

These legislative provisions will give military personnel new warning disclosures and special protections against abusive collection practices and other improper lending practices by unethical lenders like Pioneer Financial that target vulnerable service members and charge unreasonably high rates and fees and sell them grossly overpriced credit insurance and who then refinance these predatory loans within the first 12 months if possible to generate more unjustifiable fees for the lender.

Mr. Speaker, I commend Mr. Davis of Kentucky and other colleagues who took the lead in developing this legislation, and am proud to lend my support as it will help ensure our Armed Forces personnel will have essential new safeguards to stop abuses that Pioneer and some other unscrupulous high-cost lenders have engaged in.

Mr. Speaker, today, I join the North Miami Avenue Church of God and its members in giving thanks to Almighty God on the wonderful occasion of the rededication of their expanded sanctuary.

The church had its beginning at a prayer meeting in November 1977 at the home of Mr. and Mrs. Roy Hitchman. The church obviously

filled a spiritual need in many people because, after only two months, the interest and support of additional congregants led the group to rent the church hall of the First Baptist Church of Carol City. By the end of the first month at First Baptist there were approximately 50 people attending each Sunday. The official opening and dedication of Bahman Avenue Church of God was held on Sunday, February 4, 1979.

In November of 1994, the Florida State Overseer, Rev. Larry J. Timmerman, appointed Rev. Lawford A. Smith as pastor of the North Miami Avenue Church of God. Reverend Smith led the church in several new directions. Through a series of prayer meetings, worship services, neighborhood visitations, and the preaching of God's word, Reverend Smith continues to lead the church to new heights.

Early in 2005, now Bishop Smith, became concerned with the deteriorating condition of the main sanctuary and its surroundings. His concerns prompted him to propose a renovation project to the church. His vision was shared by a faithful group of people who were determined to see the work done.

Since April 4th, the membership has experienced the discomfort of dusty chairs, no air-conditioning, limited lighting, and the like. Now that the project has been completed, members are united in saying that it was well worth it. We are humbled to see what God can accomplish through the good works of people of willing heart and mind.

I want to extend my congratulations and best wishes to Bishop Smith and his congregation on this joyous occasion. May this new sanctuary help inspire those who gather together in His name.

Mr. Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the reunion of Miami-Dade County's Booker T. Washington's class of 1963. In a special way, I commend this dedicated group of alumni, who entered our community's landmark institution in 1957. Forty-two years later, the members of this class are journeying to Washington, DC to celebrate a memorable ``60th Birthday Bash,'' beginning on July 21, 2005.

Indeed, these distinguished alumni symbolize a cadre of young men and women daring to be great in their own right during their years at the school. Inspired by their motto, ``Not the largest, but the best,'' this class represents a convergence of their desire to achieve greater enhancement of our noble traditions and the meaning of our common struggles.

Booker T. Washington is truly a school for students of all ages. It was established in the days of segregation in 1926 and underwent many and varied changes, including its conversion to middle school status. But through the resilience of this class, its members achieved the unthinkable and convinced the Miami-Dade County School Board to reinstate its senior high school status in August 1999.

The alumni are now prominent members of our community and occupy positions of honor and prestige in many professions at the local, State and Federal levels. Among its distinguished leaders is Les Brown, who is on the national speakers' circuit, advising people of all ages to strive to be the best they can be; the Miami Dolphin's extraordinary athlete Larry Little; professor and author Audrey Thomas McCluskey of Indiana University; teacher-of-the-year awardee Laurasteen Thompson Jones, who continues to tutor children in innercity schools; preeminent educator Roberta Thompson Daniels; and educational counselor Stanley Squire--these are but a few of the members of the class of '63. They are bonded by their quest to serve others, and together they evoke a unique family of achievers and dreamers who have prided themselves in enduring the same burdens for the sake of others, especially the less fortunate.

As the class of '63 gathers to revive the memories of years gone by, I fully recognize the character of the members' genuine friendship that has given them hope and optimism for a better future amidst life's unceasing challenges. I am proud of this distinguished class because it represents the best and the noblest of our Miami-Dade County community and beyond amidst the countless struggles they have had to endure during a most difficult time of their years of learning. I look forward to their helping us cherish a genuine love for our proud heritage and enlighten us with greater wisdom while they continue to uphold the good name of their Alma Mater, Booker T. Washington High School.

Mr. Speaker, once again it is an honor to address the House, and the 30-Something Working Group would like to send our appreciation to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) for allowing us to have the time to come to the floor once again to talk about issues that are facing everyday Americans.

The 30-Something Working Group was created in the 108th Congress, some 3 years ago, to start talking about issues that focus on young people, children and grandchildren, about their future and the direction this country is going in. Every 30-Something Working Group hour, we talk about issues that we feel that young Americans and Americans in general should know about, but we also talk about what Democrats are doing that is different than the majority side.

I celebrate the fact that in this democracy we have an opportunity to give our views and opinions as it relates to what is happening and what is not happening. I think both are very, very important. For us to continue to move in the direction that we moved in since we became the United States of America, it is important that we have not only factual information to share with the Members and the American people, but to make sure that we are consistent.

Tonight I am joined by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan). We will talk about issues that are at the forefront of the debate here in Washington, D.C. One is Social Security. Two, we want to continue not necessarily in this order to talk about the issues that are facing veterans. We have men and women that are in the forward area in Iraq and Afghanistan, and many other parts of the world where they are fighting terrorism, but at the same time we have to understand the responsibility of making sure that we keep our end of the deal as it relates to their veterans affairs once they get back.

We have individuals that have served in past conflicts on behalf of this country, that allow us to celebrate the very freedom that we live under today. We cannot leave them behind. We cannot forget them, or turn our back on them. In many places we will point out where there are those in Congress fighting on behalf of veterans, and those in Congress who say they are fighting on behalf of veterans, but it is not coming out on the other end.

I want to talk about the Social Security proposal that has been put forward by not only the President and some Republican leaders, not only in the House but in the other body. I think it is important that the American people understand that in Washington, D.C., all you may see and hear may not be true. It is also important that we point out those inequities because anything that goes toward private accounts, I think that the American people need to continue to be very wary of. You can dress a private account up and put a fake mustache on it and a wig, but it is still privatization of Social Security.

The bottom line is across the board with both of these proposals, Americans will lose benefits if we go into private accounts. Will private accounts deal with the Social Security solvency issue? I must add that is 47 years away; 100 percent of benefits will still be provided to 48 million Americans, those 33 million in retirement, the rest who are receiving disability and survivor benefits. It will be here. What we are asking for on this side as it relates to the Democratic leadership, not only the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) but also the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the Democratic whip, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), our chairman, and our vice chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), we have not only an ongoing, but are working toward a bipartisan approach.

Mr. Speaker, I must also add there is a discussion going on now, there was a press conference last week talking about we have a bill and private accounts. It is not as bad as the President's bill, but it is starting us off on private accounts. In this same press conference it was admitted by the sponsors of the bill this will not deal with the solvency of Social Security. I do not know why we are trying to fool the American people. I do not know why we are going through this dance that we call here in Washington the Potomac two-step, trying to fake out the American people.

The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) and I are going to attempt to share not only with the Members that we know exactly what they are doing, and we are here, elected by the people from our districts, and also representing the people of the United States of America, to make sure that they know exactly what is going on.

Tonight is not about the 30-Something Working Group and what we want to talk about. It is factual. It is not the Tim Ryan report or the Kendrick Meek report, it is what is happening right now, third-party validaters. And we will continue to come to the floor to point out factual inequities in what the majority side is talking about. We want to make sure that the American people understand the difference, the difference between the leadership of veterans, or not; and the difference between leadership on behalf of Social Security and making sure that we do not leave the present generation and future generations behind.

We talked last week about the issue of the ever-growing deficit. Guess what, we are going to have to pay it off, and I do mean all of us, some

$26,000-plus that American people with children, and those unborn, that are going to have to pay because of the ever-growing infatuation with spending.

I think it is important that we point this out.

I want to take a couple of excerpts of what has been said and what has not been done.

For about 6 months the Republicans have talked about, and I would say the Republican leadership because I do not like to generalize. There are some Republicans who are very uncomfortable with both of these proposals. I think it is important that we continue to hold onto those individuals who are showing leadership.

I would also add there are some individuals in the Republican leadership that are trying very quietly to share that private accounts are not the way to go. We are asking them to go see the wizard, not only to get some courage, but to make sure that they stand up to these forces that are trying to push private accounts on the American people.

I have to digress so we can make sure that we all understand, we want to break it down. The bottom line is on the Republican side, by the rules that are set here in the House of Representatives, the majority runs the agenda here in the House. The majority runs the agenda here in the House. I am not only talking to Democrats, Republicans, and the one Independent we have in this House, that we have a responsibility to make sure that we stand up not on behalf of the leader of the Republican Conference or Republicans here in the House, but on behalf of the individuals who woke up early one Tuesday morning to go vote for some leadership. It is time for us to stand up and make that happen.

We hope in the 30-Something Working Group by the pressure applied that two things happen. One, right here and right now, people in the leadership positions make the right decision, to make sure that we make Social Security solvent and do away with the whole idea of trying to go into private accounts.

Private accounts would only benefit those individuals who are involved in the New York Stock Exchange, that care about the $944 billion that they would be able to prosper from in the next 20 years on the backs of everyday working Americans.

I think it is important that before that happens, in whatever form, and I am in no way supporting or encouraging any of the Members of this House to try to move in that direction, that we need to make sure that Democratic Members who are solid on this issue, and the few Republicans who are solid on this issue, that we stick together on behalf of the American people. Or we may very well have the American people say, fine; I am a Republican or Democrat or Independent, I believe in my Social Security and I want it here.

If you are not a recipient of Social Security, you have a family member that is a recipient of Social Security. If you do not have a family member that is a recipient of Social Security, you will have a family member that will be a recipient of Social Security. That is the good thing about America, is that we care about one another. These individuals work every day and may hurt themselves on the job, and they count on Social Security.

Mr. Speaker, it is once again an honor to have the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) to share this hour, and also to let the Members of this House, to let them know exactly what the truth is.

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what they are doing.

Mr. Speaker, the Members need to truly understand this. We know where we are as Democrats. We are solid on the side of the issue of dealing with the solvency of Social Security beyond the 48 years it will be solvent, and beyond 80 percent benefits that individuals will receive after that.

The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) and I have been working on this issue. We have had town hall meetings on it. Democrats have had some 900 town hall meetings throughout the country and will continue to have more to make sure that we fight against this issue of privatization and make sure that we make sure that Social Security is there for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

And, Mr. Speaker, that is the reason why we are here. It is not about winning or losing under the Capitol dome. It is about the American people being able to win and keep confidence within this body. And I will tell my colleagues now, looking at the recent poll numbers, they do not feel good about what is happening here in Congress.

There was an article on Friday, and it was in The Washington Post: ``GOP Sounded the Alarm but didn't Respond to'' the issue of Social Security. And I would recommend Members take a look at this. It was written by Michael Allen, and I just want to take an excerpt out of this.

The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) mentioned something about winning, wanting to win. We are here to win on behalf of the American people; and one Republican Member of the other body, not this House but the other body, and I know that Members understand that we have the legislative branch, judicial branch, and executive branch but the legislative branch consists of the House and the Senate. But in the other body I must add that if the Republicans take this to a vote and the Democrats try to stop us, we will end up as the winners. That comes from a Member of the

other body that is from South Carolina.

Let me just share this with my colleagues. This is not school yard kickball here. This is Social Security, and this is serious business; and this is not about because we can, we will. This is about doing the right thing. And it really is stomach-turning when we see individuals taking an end zone dance and talking about what we can do because we can do it.

If I can, I would like to talk a little bit, because we have limited time here tonight, and we can talk about Social Security, but I have to address this issue of not only the Veterans Affairs but what is happening right now in Iraq and Afghanistan. Earlier tonight during the first Democratic hour, members of the Democratic Caucus read the names of those individuals who have fallen in the line of duty, and we honor and we respect them, and on behalf of a grateful country, we appreciate their family members' sacrifice. They paid the ultimate sacrifice, and so did their loved ones.

A lot of mothers and fathers are no longer with us because we asked them, this Congress asked them, to go into battle and they lost their lives. And, Mr. Speaker, this is the reason why we run not only for Congress. And I hate to hear the gentlewoman from Florida say 6 months. I mean, she spent double-digit years in the State legislature. She has dealt with many of these issues in the Florida house and the Florida senate, and many of those issues are the same here. Unfortunately, the inaction on behalf of the Republican leadership is very disturbing, and I say some of them because I know some are people of good will and want to make sure we do the right thing.

I want to point the attention of the Members, Mr. Speaker, to the June 27, today, article that was on page A13 of The Washington Post: ``VA Gets the Picture, No Shortfall Here.'' I just want to take some excerpts out of this article because we have limited time, but we have to make sure that we call a spade a spade, and that is the reason why I like the 30-something Working Group because we put it on the table and let it be known. If anybody wants to make an argument, it is democracy. Bring it on and defend the situations that they are making. But, unfortunately, this is not school yard kickball. This is the United States Congress.

``Turns out that $1 billion shortfall for health care funding for our Nation disclosed last week by the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs hearing is only one of many important and vexing dilemmas facing top officials at the Department of Veterans Affairs.''

I am going to go a little further down in the article. It talks about a conversation, I believe a conference call, by the Deputy Under Secretary Laura Miller, who said on the May 27 call, ``Many of our facilities, medical centers, community-based outpatient clinics, there are about 850 of them in the country, many in rural areas,'' Mr. Speaker, ``and some open only 1 or 2 days a month.'' Not 1 or 2 days a week; 1 or 2 days a month in rural areas. ``And other offices have a picture of Secretary Jim Nicholson prominently displayed. Unfortunately, however,'' Ms. Miller continued, ``there are many facilities that currently do not have the picture displayed. I am aware that the mailings of the pictures occurred on April 22, 2005. So that's more than 5 full weeks.'' It goes on to say that ``We are asking that you give this your highest priority.''

This is from Washington, DC. The highest priority, we will continue to ask daily on updates of the status until we are sure that all facilities have a current displayed picture.

In the defense of local VA officials, it turns out that Miller was wrong. Not all the photos went out on the 22nd. We are hearing that some officials disagree that the photos should be the highest priority, and they are asking that it should not be. Also they are saying what they are focused on right now at these local VA facilities is they are trying to sell furniture to buy prescription drugs on behalf of veterans out there now.

Then it goes on, and, unfortunately, it gets worse. The Secretary, Mr. Nicholson, when he testified in a hearing last week, Nicholson was the author of an April 5 letter to Senators saying ``I can assure you that the VA does not need additional funds to continue to provide timely and adequate service.''

Let me just share something with you. The bottom line here, Mr. Speaker, when we have a Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs that is more concerned about his picture being displayed in VA hospitals and community-based facilities, some that I must add are only open 1 or 2 days a month, these are individuals that get all teary-eyed here on the floor talking about what we need to do for the troops and for the veterans, but meanwhile, back at the ranch, we have a $1 billion shortfall. And Democrats have tried to do something about it.

All I have to say to the Secretary is, he wants his picture displayed, I am going to put his picture in my office. His picture will no longer be the priority on behalf of veterans. We will to the Hill and fight on behalf of veterans and make sure that they do not have to wait 6 months to be able to see the ophthalmologist.

Mr. Speaker, I know I am bending on the time here, but I wanted to share this with my colleagues, because I think it is important that everyone understands we are about the business of not just saying pounding our chest and saying ``we are going to go to Iraq and make sure that we have democracy there.'' We are making sure we keep our promise, not only to those individuals that have served in past conflicts, but are in present conflicts.

So the individuals walking around here talking about what we are going to do, and how long we are going to stay, and there is no plan to make the coalition bigger or no plan really to start talking about how we are going to bring our troop levels down in Iraq, meanwhile Democrats are here adding amendments to the Committee on the Budget. And I must add again, we all know, and it is important our constituents know, that the majority runs this House of Representatives. The bottom line is, they bring bills to the floor, they bring issues to the floor. Some issues we can work with them on. But when it comes down to veterans, to health care, when it comes down to Social Security and folks want to talk about something that is going to take us back versus move us forward, we have a problem with it.

There was an amendment, an alternative to the budget that was passed on March 5 of this year, the Democratic budget. It included a $20.9 billion increase for the next 5 years for veterans health care in order to meet the needs of the returning soldiers and veterans who rely on VA hospital care. Without that, there will be an estimated fee, can I say ``tax'' on veterans, to pay more for their health care.

Now, they have been lied to. I will not be an unindicted co- conspirator in that lie. I think it is important that we make sure that the veterans know. I see veterans, and I am not concerned about their party affiliation. The bottom line is what they get and are not getting. What they are not getting, in my opinion, is appropriate representation that they need here in Congress to make sure that they get what they need.

Am I emotional about this? You are dog-gone right I am, because I would not be here under this flag if it was not for individuals that have served this country, day in and day out. Many of them have to put on a prosthetic limb to walk around in the morning. Many of those individuals cannot perform the kind of functions that they carried out prior to going into a conflict. So, I have no time and no tolerance for the Potomac Two-Step.

Once again, Democrats, people want to know the difference. I am sharing it with them right now. Once again, an amendment in the committee by one of our great Members, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards), increased health care funding above President Bush's proposed budget by $1.9 billion, an estimate that the Republican budget plan for $798 million in veterans cuts over 5 years. Once again, a Democratic Member from Texas supported by Democratic members of the Committee on Ways and Means, a 15 to 20 vote.

The bottom line is, one of two things needs to happen: Either some individuals on the Republican side have to step up and represent the people that sent them here, or the American people are going to have to make a difference.

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

individuals' feelings being hurt about what I am sharing with them as it relates to facts and what we are sharing with them as it relates to facts. If we were here talking fiction, I would not be able to sleep well at night.

I will tell you right now, this is factual. Individuals can go into the record. As a matter of fact, they can go to nationaljournal.com/ members/markups/2005/03/200506812.htm and find it. It is what it is. And if individuals do not want to man up and woman up and lead, then the American people need to make other decisions.

The gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith), the former chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, was removed; not by Democrats, not by the people in his district, but by the Republican Conference. Why? Why? This is Fox News, okay? This is what I am reading right now, Fox News, right off their website. ``Smith passed an increase in investment on the Veterans Affairs Administration budget that put him on a different page from party leaders.'' He is no longer the chairman because he decided to represent the veterans that are out there in America.

So, the gentlewoman knows, being from Florida, we have a number of veterans. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) from Ohio has a number of proud veterans and reserve units in harm's way. It is important to stand up for them.

Mr. Speaker, once again, we had another good 30- something Working Group Special Order. We look forward to coming back after we celebrate our independence on the Fourth of July. As my colleagues know, here on the Washington Mall we have quite a celebration and throughout America in many small towns and cities. We will be coming back to the floor to talk about Social Security, factual information, and to talk about how Democrats are part of the solution.

I must say, once again, we are not here to generalize. We have some Republicans on the other end that are totally against the privatization of Social Security and totally for the full funding, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith) was, as it relates to veterans affairs, doing better by our veterans. Seventy percent of the individuals who are fighting in Iraq are young people who are doing what they have to do.

Mr. Speaker, with that, we would like to not only thank the Democratic leader but the Democratic leadership for allowing us to come again.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a trailblazer and community icon in South Florida politics, Hollywood, Florida City Commissioner Cathleen ``Cathy'' Anderson. Commissioner Anderson is celebrating her 30th year of uninterrupted service as a member of the City Commission, making her the longest serving member in the history of that body.

The first woman to serve on the Hollywood City Commission, she was originally appointed in June of 1975 to fill the unexpired term of Thomas Wohl. A Broward County native, Anderson justifiably takes great pride in a family history that is intertwined with the history of our state--all the way back to 1896, when her great grandfather and great uncle traveled on the first Flagler train to Broward County. That pioneering spirit has since been a family tradition and a trademark of Anderson's career in Public Service.

She was an early leader in the Broward County Environmental Movement which brought one-half of Hollywood's Barrier Island into public ownership. She was a founding Director of the Broward Chapter of the National Conference of Christians and Jews in 1979 (now the National Conference for Community and Justice); served for more than 20 years as a trustee of the Broward County Historical Commission; and served seven years as chairperson of the Broward County Historical Preservation Board. She is currently a long-time Board Member of the Broward County Tourist Development Council; and Honorary Board Member of the Hollywood Police Athletic League.

Since early childhood, Commissioner Anderson has been an animal rights activist, with a deep and enduring love of animals. In 1970, she founded Animal Birth Control, a non-profit organization established for the benefit and welfare of cats and dogs. Today, the organization continues to successfully operate with Commissioner Anderson as President.

Commissioner Anderson's innovative spirit and dedicated approach to public service has benefited and touched people in all walks of life and has resulted in her being recognized and honored by countless organizations, including NCCJ, American Jewish Congress, Humane Society of Broward County. Additionally, Commissioner Anderson was inducted in March of 1999 into the Broward County Women's Hall of Fame.

A resident of Hollywood said of Commissioner Anderson in a recent Miami Herald article, ``No one owns Cathy; no one from old Florida, new Florida, no developer. Cathy is just Cathy.'' She has made and continues to make an indelible mark on the development of South Florida, and she is due a tremendous debt of gratitude for her foresight, courage and leadership over the past 30 years.

Mr. Speaker, rise to honor a true leader in our South Florida Community, Ruth Shack.

After she became the President of the Dade Community Foundation in 1985, Ruth spearheaded a campaign to encourage philanthropy and charitable giving by developing a permanent endowment to meet Greater Miami's emerging charitable needs. The Foundation protects and manages the assets of philanthropic funds and provides grant-making expertise to donors with various interests at all levels of giving. By bringing together diverse groups in Miami-Dade County, the Foundation helps improve the quality of life and build a more cohesive community by supporting local nonprofit organizations with grants and technical assistance.

Spurred by her leadership, the Foundation made a radical change in its mission by diversifying its Board of Governors, its staff and its grant-making focus to better respond to the needs of Miami's greatest asset and our most intractable challenge: the incredible ethnic diversity of our community. They review the grants they award from the standpoint of their impact on the issue of cultural alienation and the need to help people work successfully across ethnic barriers. Empowerment and seed funding for emerging groups, based in the diverse multicultural communities of Miami-Dade, are the hallmarks of their grant-making program.

In addition to her two decades of leadership at the Dade Community Foundation, Ruth Shack has also served three very productive terms on the Dade County Commission and in leadership capacities in numerous other organizations, both locally and across the country. Throughout her career she has demonstrated a profound commitment to making Miami a community where opportunity is available to everyone.

Mr. Speaker, I know that I speak for our entire community in congratulating and thanking Ruth Shack for her 20 years at the helm of the Dade Community Foundation.

Mr. Speaker, once again, it is an honor to address the House for another week. The 30 Something Working Group has come to the floor to talk about issues that are not only facing young people but also facing Americans in general, and I think one of the greatest values we have in this country is caring about future generations and caring about those that cannot represent themselves.

It is important that we come to this House and in this great democracy that we celebrate every day and recognize the contributions of those individuals that go to work every day. Those individuals know what it means to punch in and punch out every day. Those individuals know what it means to not have health care; those individuals that are going to have to pay down this $7.8 trillion deficit; those individuals that are running small businesses that would like to have assistance from this Federal Government to be able to carry

out their everyday needs, not only for their employees, but to make sure that we have a fair tax policy for the backbone of our economy.

So we meet weekly to talk about these issues and then we come to the floor. We would like to thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic leader; and also in our leadership, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), as Democratic whip; the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), who is our chairman; and also, the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Clyburn), who is our vice chairman, for providing the kind of leadership within the Democratic Caucus that is needed not only for the caucus but for America.

We come here as young members of the Democratic Caucus in this Congress to shed light and bring clarification to statements and actions or inactions by this Congress.

I am pleased to announce, as I announced last week, that a number of the individuals in the White House and in the majority have now taken another look at Social Security. Once again, we come back to the floor to talk about that issue, Social Security. As they start to look at this issue, they are finding that Americans are just not with them on the privatization of Social Security.

I am far from receiving from Social Security as it relates to retirement, but let us just think of hypotheticals of how important Social Security is. Someone my age could receive survivor benefits from a parent who wants to leave survivor benefits, not my age but younger, or receive disability.

So when we start talking about Social Security on this side of the aisle, the Democratic Caucus, we are talking about strengthening Social Security. Even some of my friends over on the majority side, Republicans, are talking about strengthening Social Security, not weakening Social Security through schemes and privatization plans.

So we continue to fight and also let the leaders on the majority side know that we are willing to work together once again, like we did in 1983 with Speaker of this House Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan in the White House, of working out a way that we can strengthen Social Security, make sure that it is here beyond the 47 years that it will be here, providing 100 percent of the benefits that we are providing right now, and even 80 percent of the benefits after that period, of making sure that people can count on the fact that if they pay into Social Security, that it will be there for them when they need it.

It is important. Some 48 million Americans receive Social Security right now. A number of those Americans are retired, but many of them are receiving disability benefits due to an injury on the job, and they cannot work or individuals that their parents have paid into the Social Security and now their children are able to not only educate themselves but help them make it through college with extra money to be able to help them to become productive citizens here in the United States.

So that is the reason why this debate is so important. Are there other issues that are important? Of course, there are. Is the environment important? You bet it is. Is education important? That is our future; of course, it is. Is health care important? Health care puts the backbone into education, into workforce, into making sure that we have a healthy economy and that we are able to compete against other countries as it relates to making our country strong.

So those are very, very important issues, but Social Security is in the halls of Congress now. It is important, Mr. Speaker, that we break down this debate to the point that individuals, everyone, can understand, every Member can understand, every American could understand, everyone that will be affected, and that is all Americans, from young to old.

It is important that we no longer allow the majority side to raid the Social Security trust fund, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) is on his way to the floor, and we are going to talk about a proposal that was just introduced this week of saying that it is different than what the President is proposing. Well, another proposal that is supposed to be different than what the President is proposing.

As you know, the Social Security trust fund has been raided to some $670 billion. So when we see proposals of individuals saying, well, we just take this from the trust fund and we will take that from the trust fund, the trust fund is there to make sure that individuals that are expecting their benefits out of Social Security, when they need it, Social Security when they need it, that it is there for them. It is not time to experiment. It is not time to say we want private accounts and this is just the way it is going to be.

Paper is paper, and if you go get a yellow sheet of paper and say that, well, it is yellow, it is different; well, if it has private accounts in it, we already know and the American people know that that means fewer benefits for those individuals that are enrolled in the private accounts or not enrolled in the private accounts. So it is important that we pay very close attention in what is going on and what is being said.

Now, there are a number of individuals that are very, very concerned, and I will tell you that for young people, and I do mean young people in America, and for parents that have young people that are in college or young people that are trying to make their way, you may have a son or daughter that is living in an apartment just trying to be independent, trying to get on their feet, trying to do what you have done, trying to build the kind of values that you placed in them, you try to place in them as you were rearing them and as you were trying to develop them as men and women. They are trying to stand up, and it is imperative that this Congress does everything that it has to do to make sure that their government does not gamble on their retirement.

On average, young people are staying on jobs 3 to 4 years, on average. They need to make sure that Social Security is going to be there for them because a pension plan may never really develop in the way that it is supposed to. There are a number of Americans that are in pension plans right now that have failed them, and it is very, very unfortunate that is the case, but one thing that they can bank on literally is that Social Security will be there for them.

So when we have individuals running around here talking about private accounts, thinking that it sounds good or cool or something new to present to the Social Security debate, I must remind them that we will continue to rise up, and it is a one-sided debate thus far on the private account end. It is only the majority side, the Republican side, and the leadership who is talking about private accounts and now want to act on private accounts but call it something else.

It is not a tomato or tomato issue. It is an issue of being clear with the American people, and so it is important that we remember that 44 percent of young people are living in poverty, and that means people within our family. I know that I have individuals in my family that are living in poverty, whether it be a cousin or uncle or even a neighbor, and it is important that we recognize that.

Approximately 2 million young adults are without health care insurance for the entire year. That means young people are going to drugstores, trying to medicate themselves or trying to make themselves healthy when they should have health care, and this is important.

It is also important to understand that young people in America call on their parents and grandparents and family members to help them when they are running into hard types. So, when we start talking about taking anything away, either benefits or a right they may have as it relates to Social Security, saying that they are trying to help them, it is not going to help them, and it is important that we fight against that.

Now, as it relates to what the Democrats are talking about on this side of the aisle and what we are trying to do, and I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that not only do I share with and remind the Members and those that expect Members on this side to be able to carry the ball in leadership, that by the rules, and I hate to be repetitive, but I think it is important that everyone understands, the rules of the House, the majority runs the operation here in the House. On the minority side, we cannot agenda a bill. We cannot agenda a bill in committee. We

cannot place a bill through the Committee on Rules here on the floor of the House. We can only recommend.

So when you see private accounts and when you see lack of health care, when you see as a small business person unfair tax policies, to be able to allow your business to prosper, when you see environmental laws falling short of what they should be, then you must understand that on this side of the aisle we try to do all we can. And I will give credit to some of my Republicans colleagues that think in the same way and that are trying to do better as it relates to addressing those issues.

As to veterans, and I am from Florida and have many veterans in my district, and they come to me. Congressman, I cannot understand, it seems like the list is getting longer and longer every time I go to the VA. Well, that is because we are not standing by our veterans. We march up and down the street on Veterans Day and Memorial Day and recognize those that have paid the ultimate sacrifice. But on that Tuesday after recognizing the veterans, it will be business as usual and as it relates to VA hospitals and copayments that veterans have to pay more and more for.

We talk about individuals in Iraq, and 70 percent of those who are losing their life in Iraq are under 30 years old. So these are patriots. These are individuals that are going out there even before they are able to start their own family, in many cases even before they have an opportunity to be able to buy their first home. So it is important when we start saying we are doing something in light of our young people, it is important that we pay very, very close attention to this.

I am going to show one of these charts here. This is the President's priorities as it relates to tax cuts. It is greater than the funding that is available for veterans in this country. I will tell Members, I have a veteran in my family. My uncle is a veteran. He served in the Korean War. He is a soldier from the Army. He did what he had to do on behalf of this country because this country asked him to do it. We have $1.8 trillion in permanent tax cuts. We also have tax cuts for the top 1 percent which is $0.8 trillion, and then there is $0.3 trillion as it relates to veteran budget authority.

I think it is important that Members understand that the way we work here in Congress, we talk a lot about veterans and what we should be doing for them, and we talk a lot about their contributions. And many of us walk and march and wave in parades. And, ho-hum, we salute the same flag. But better yet, when it comes down to where we put our dollars, where we put our priorities, how we take action as it relates to veterans, you can see where it falls short.

I will tell you once again, giving credit to some of my Republican colleagues, some of them have a real problem with this. The past chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs was removed, removed from the chairmanship of the committee, because he did not pass the legislation that the leadership on the majority side wanted to see passed.

Mr. Speaker, he did the right thing and he paid. He paid with his chairmanship. So that is why it is important that I remind Members of the majority and the minority, and we will continue to bring factual, accurate debate on the issues that are either happening in this Congress or not happening in this Congress. When we are able to come together on issues that are facing America, fine. We can talk about that and we can be very proud of those accomplishments. But when our priorities differ, it is important for us to pay very close attention.

I have another chart here. Those of us in the 30-Something Working Group, we have a constant watch on this number. These are our recent numbers. As Members can see, we are close to $1.8 trillion. This is as of June 20. Below that we have the share of the national debt for every American: Democrat, Republican, Independent, Green Party, you name it. Reform Party, just born 10 minutes ago, they already owe the Federal Government $26,255.76. This has to be paid off. This is not monopoly money, this is not funny money. This is not the Meek Report or the 30- Something Working Group Report. This is from the U.S. Department of Treasury. We will give our Web site out a little later where you can look at it.

Mr. Speaker, once again, to back up, I think it is important that we go through the fundamentals and talk about the difference. When this House was run by Democrats, we balanced the budget without one Republican vote. That is a fact. That is prima facie evidence, as they say in the courtroom. That is not a fabrication. That is not exaggeration. That is not something that some Democrat said on the floor and it is not true. We balanced the budget.

The number we have here was balanced and was going into surplus. As a matter of fact, it was not as high because this is the highest the national debt has been in the history of the Republic. Since we have been a country, the deficit has not been this high. Some may say well, it is the war in Iraq. That is not true.

Well, we ran into a hard time; 9/11 happened and we had to create a new department. That is not true. That is not why it is so high. The debt is where it is now because we have decided to give tax cuts to billionaires. That is a big part of it. And then we turned around and made it permanent. Now, middle-class tax cuts, I do not have a problem with that because that grows the economy.

But when we start talking about a fundamental difference in how we do business on this side of the aisle and how the majority does business on that side of the aisle, there is a big difference.

Like I said, I am not a generalist because I do not like to generalize, but when I say some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have problems with some of the decisions being made by the leadership, that is true. So I think it is important that we focus on the things that we can continue to focus on as it relates to the priorities and how we work to make things better.

I am going to start talking a little bit about the plan that the President has put out and that some Republican Members of Congress have put on the table. The President has said that he wants to bring privatization to young people. Young Americans will be able to have private Social Security accounts; that they will be able to use their own money and have options and invest it in a way that they want to invest it.

The President has come to this Chamber and addressed this Congress in the last State of the Union and said if you are over 55, do not worry about it, it will not affect you. The President has also said he will fight to the end, making sure we have private accounts. Regardless of the fact that not only news reports but nonprofit and government entities have found, and the White House has admitted the fact that if you are in a private account, if you decide to take a private account or not, you will lose benefits.

So it really fights against logic to say well, I know I will lose benefits, but it is important that we go the private account route, even though Social Security is not in a crisis at this particular time, not an imminent crisis.

There have been words out of the White House that it is a crisis and it is about to go bankrupt, using words such as that. And media, along with some Americans who are informed on the issue of Social Security, have said, yes, we have to strengthen Social Security. Yes, we have concerns with the trust fund, but we are not about to go bankrupt.

So after the 60- or 90-day tour of burning Federal jet fuel, your tax dollars, the President went around the country speaking to Americans. And some were not allowed to come into the talks, or what have you, and still after all of that Federal money spent, Americans still came back and said no, we are not with you on this one. And so it is important that everyone understands.

So if you feel oh, well, and we are talking about what the majority is doing now. Until the American people say different, that is what the situation is going to be. We are going to bring balance to this debate. It is important. And I ask the Republican leadership to work in a bipartisan way not only with our leadership but with every Member of this House, making sure that we strengthen Social Security and not privatize Social Security.

Mr. Speaker, there have been hundreds of town hall meetings throughout the country, talking about this issue of Social Security, and young and old have said we want Social Security. It is the best government program that we have in many cases, and we want it to be strengthened, we do not want it to be privatized. We know that when you privatize something, you have to meet the bottom line. And the people that are in the business of so-called making you money, they have to make their bottom line. If they have to make their bottom line, I guarantee if they are in business and making their bottom line, they are going to take care of that business first and then maybe your investments may make some profit.

Mr. Speaker, I was about to go into the new plan or philosophy that has been brought to this House in the way of a press conference about private accounts, but since the gentleman just got here, and I have been talking about Social Security and privatization, going through the minority and majority issues. It would not be a discussion, if we were in the majority, that we would strengthen Social Security in a bipartisan way like we did in 1983, and that we would be dealing with issues such as health care and other issues that are facing us. We are going to talk about that, too.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome and yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, we are giving it too much credit by calling it a plan. It is a philosophy. The proponents are saying, and they have now come up with a new approach, it is different than the privatization proposal, but it is just like the privatization proposal.

It would take a portion of the Social Security trust fund revenues and put them into private accounts. That is privatization. It does not matter whether the total size of the account is limited to an amount each year as it relates to the Social Security trust fund rather than a percentage for the participants' payroll taxes. The gentleman from Ohio and I are very familiar with the Potomac two-step. We know what it means to say, Look over here but we're going over there. And so it is important that we not only come to this floor and let the Members know and say it out loud, A portion of what? How much? What is a portion? I can guarantee you it is in the trillions.

And if we start talking about, well, it is not necessarily the President's private account plan, but it is dealing with private accounts, that is privatization. I am sorry, any way you cut it, it is privatization. As we learn more about and as we start to unmask this GOP leadership vision, which is based upon theory, not fact, we will start to understand as it relates to the privatization scheme and how they are trying to get there.

I know as long as we have air in our body and God provides us another day to live, that as we see this old, Well, it's not private accounts, or we're going to take a portion, we are going to translate that not only for the Members but also for the American people, Mr. Speaker, and it is important that we do that, and we are going to continue to follow it. But the gentleman from Ohio is 100 percent right, we do have some additional information; but the bottom line is that they are going to go into the Social Security trust fund to be able to, I guess, secure these private accounts.

I am sorry, can I correct the gentleman? It was $350 billion.

It is like walking down the hall and you never get to the end as it relates to the deficit. Let me just tell you a little bit more about this plan, because I had an opportunity to jot some things down. Let me just further break this down and water it down a little bit more so that we can all understand, every Member of Congress can understand exactly what we are doing or what some individuals would like to do.

Under this new plan that they have put forth, Members of Congress, a Member in the House and another Member in the other body, they basically said under the current annual surpluses would shift to private accounts, so they are saying that what we have now as it relates to the surpluses in the Social Security trust fund would now be shifted to private accounts. The sponsors even admit the fact that this plan would do nothing to restore solvency to Social Security. This will not solve the Social Security issue.

This will not. By the sponsors. This is not someone walking down the street.

There you go. It is not. This is by their own admission. No, it will not solve it. Furthermore, when you start looking at it, it really has three serious flaws. When you are talking about Social Security, there is no time to play around and start talking about, well, I am smarter than the next person. I believe this will work. We cannot go on belief. We have to know for sure. One flaw. The plan would worsen the Social Security solvency issue in the long run and in the short run. This is not something that will be kind of off into the future.

The plan would also drain $600 billion from the Social Security trust fund in the first 10 years, $600 billion. This is what they are saying right now. You just talked about the prescription drug, quote-unquote, plan starting off at $350 billion and now $724 billion as we stand here today, and counting. This is what they are starting off with within the first 10 years. The third issue, the plan will cause Social Security to become insolvent 2 years sooner, in 2039 instead of 2041. This is not only saying, well, ladies and gentlemen, put your head down, we are going in for a crash landing; but we are going to hit the ground before we actually hit the ground. As a matter of fact, we are going to move the ground closer, or we are going to make the plane go faster to be able to hit the ground.

I will tell you this right now, it is important and it goes to show you how the Republican leadership is willing to stop at nothing to deal with this private account issue. Furthermore, let me just say that some of my friends on the Republican side have great issues not only with the President's plan but with this plan. I appreciate my colleagues who are trying to figure out a way, but there is a better way without private accounts. There is a way to strengthen Social Security. Better yet, a total Democratic plan is not the best plan. A bipartisan plan is the best plan. That is what we are saying.

Mr. Speaker, the people that I run into, they say, Well, goodness, can you guys and gals, can the Members, can you work together? Can you just get along? Can you just come together on this issue on Social Security? If we can come together on making sure our men and women in uniform overseas, thousands of miles away and three or four different time zones away from here, if we can try to do our best and make sure that they get what they are supposed to get in a bipartisan way, then we have to make sure that the individuals that are here and the families that are here and the individuals that have paid into this, even those that have died and left survivor benefits for their children, that they get a fair shake. It is our responsibility to make sure that happens.

We talked about the fact that we are in the minority, we would like to be in the majority, but in the minority we can fight, too. And we will make sure that the American people know exactly what is going on.

One other point. We have to give credit where credit is due. There are some individuals that are not in the leadership on the Republican side that are not with this private account thing. I am asking my friends, and I see them in the hall, we bump into each other here on the floor, they say, I saw your 30-something Working Group, you were talking about this, I am glad you said some Republicans are not with this privatization thing. I am one of them.

Do you remember the movie ``Jerry McGuire'' when they took Jerry McGuire out to fire him? The guy went out to fire him. He said, man, I'm sorry, but they sent me and I'm here to fire you. He is staring at this glass of water, and he is not saying anything. The guy said, You should say something. That is what I am saying to my friends on the opposite side of the aisle: you should say something. You should rise up and say, Enough with the private accounts. Maybe yes; oh, I think it's okay; let's try to find another plan. That is it. Let us strengthen Social Security, and let us just put this private account thing out the door so that we can get on with the business of the Congress in a bipartisan way. That is what we are saying.

The States cannot even afford Medicaid. They are saying Medicaid reform. You know why? Because businesses are saying, when folks are signing up and filling out their employment information, they are saying, well, I think you are eligible for Medicaid. I think you need to apply there because you will get more benefits under the Federal program versus what we can provide you.

I wanted the gentleman to say that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, getting back to talking about getting the job done, that is being shed light on, what the gentleman just shed light on as it relates to what is not happening and also what is happening to Americans versus for them.

The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Snyder), one of our colleagues, put forth a piece of legislation, and once again if Democrats were in the majority here in the House, which we fight for every day, of responding to the national health care crisis as it relates to young people, it is the Health Care for Young Americans Act that he has put forth that many of us are cosponsors of, which would allow States the option of extending health care insurance coverage to many uninsured young adults. States provide health care coverage to low-income uninsured children largely through two Federal/state programs, Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. However, these programs often reclassify children as adults when they turn 19, making them ineligible for coverage.

Mr. Speaker, we have to start on this health care issue somewhere, and we have solutions on this side of the aisle on how to deal with those issues. Just last week we talked about legislation that the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), ranking member, has put before the Committee on Education and the Workforce, introduced bills with other Members here in the House that we are both cosponsors of, that replenish the issue of the Pell grants, because the Bush administration has changed the formula that are cheating young people next year, the next fiscal year, out of $300 million of dollars that should be in that Pell grant program that they have taken away. We want to put those dollars back because we know, just like the gentleman said as it relates to competing against China, competing against other countries that are competing against us, where we have a negative trade deficit as it relates to dealing in business with them, but they are having a great time doing business with us; and meanwhile here in America we have people that are trying to put themselves to work and businesses that want to put them to work, but cannot afford to put them to work and are putting them out of work because they can no longer afford to keep them in work because the jobs have moved overseas and they cannot compete with the prices that are there.

But the 30-Something Working Group is not only pointing out the issues but also talking about what we have on the table that would be on this floor or going through the committee process in a bipartisan way to find the solution, not for Americans that happen to be Democrats, but for Americans that want a fair share from their government and being able to make sure that they have not only adequate health care but to make sure that their children have it.

I am a father, Mr. Speaker, and I was married 14 years ago, going on 14 years, and I was a different person before I got married. But when I got married, it was a totally different relationship. And then when we start having children, we change as an individual, and then when our children start to get older, we continue to change. And then when our children, and I have not seen this yet, start to talk about leaving and going to college or getting into some kind of trade or getting out on their own, which some parents say that never happens, but when they start to develop themselves as young adults, we still parent. We still care about them.

So when we start talking about health care for young people, when we start talking about making sure that they get a Pell grant to educate themselves, it is our issue. When we start talking about Social Security and we have the administration and some members of the Republican leadership saying privatization is the way to go when the only guarantee is $944 billion would go to Wall Street, that is our issue. We are here to watch out for future generations.

I agree with the President in saying we have got to watch out for future generations, but we do not watch out for them. And seeing that deficit, that almost $7.8 trillion deficit that the gentleman has there behind him, there is not a real debate on the majority side or even legislation to provide health care or to make sure that every American is able to receive health care or making sure that small business is able to provide health care. There is not a real agenda, and if it is there, then why is it not happening? Why are we here saying what we are saying if it is happening? Because it is not happening.

So that is the difference. People are asking, What is the difference between us and them? One, we are all Americans. Two, we have a Republican side and we have a Democratic side. Three, the majority runs the House of Representatives. So if people want change, if they want to bring about opportunity, then we have to put the pressure on the majority side to make them do the right thing, and hopefully they will do the right thing and then maybe it will work, or the American people are going to have to rise up, Mr. Speaker, and say they want different.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman gets a chance, I would like him to be able to share the Web site information and e-mail information not only with the Members, Mr. Speaker, but making sure that everyone knows exactly what we are talking about here. And I think it is important that we couch this 30-Something Working Group hour in saying that we have a number of issues that have to be addressed in America. We have issues that are facing people that punch in and punch out every day, or once did; individuals that ran a small business,

put their kids through college, now having to really work hard to help their children or grandchildren make it in this America. And so it is important that we bring issue to that.

It is also important to let people know that we have ideas, not only concerns but ideas. And we present that every week, at least two proposals that our colleagues have put forth or we have put forth to be able to strengthen America. So it is important that we continue on this track. I want to thank the gentleman and other members of the 30- Something Working Group for doing what they do.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, once again I thank the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) for his comments, and, like I said, everyone in the 30-Something Working Group, we would like to thank not only the Democratic leader but the Democratic leadership for allowing us to be here once again. And it was an honor to address the House, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

The motion was agreed to; accordingly (at 10 o'clock and 13 minutes p.m.), the House adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, June 23, 2005, at 10 a.m.

Mr. Speaker, once again, it is a pleasure to address the House, and I would like to thank the Democratic leader for allowing the 30-something Working Group, once again, to come to the floor to not only address the Members, but also make sure that we continue our commitment of sharing information as we get it on various issues that are facing 30-somethings throughout the United States of America; also to be able to address the issues that are facing everyday Americans, whether they be young or old, school age, or those that are yet unborn.

It is very, very important for us to come to the floor, especially in this democracy that we celebrate, and talk about some of these issues that are taking place, some that we are taking action on, others that we have had very little action on, and some that we are not acting upon at all.

The focus of the 30-something Working Group is to make sure that on issues that are ongoing, such as Social Security, an ever-growing Federal debt, a deficit that is in the trillions of dollars that will keep future generations and even the present generation indebted to this Federal Government, and also issues that are facing our young people as it relates to education, making sure that they are able to not only go to college, but when they leave college, that they do not find themselves in debt.

Just for a moment, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to point out the issue of Social Security. I do, Mr.

Speaker, have some good news to report: one, that this issue of private accounts and taking benefits away from the American people is very unpopular with Americans; also, two, that it is unpopular with Members of the Congress.

Now, in the other body, there is a chairman of a committee over there that basically cannot get the Social Security bill rolling as long as they are talking about private accounts. As a matter of fact, there is an article today in The Washington Post that talks about the fact that even at the White House, and some of the leaders of this House have said, either we are going to deal with Social Security soon or we are not going to deal with it at all, and why put Members of the House in jeopardy to vote for private accounts that will take benefits away from the American people, not only those who are retirees, but also those who are receiving survivor benefits and those who are receiving disability benefits. It will take away benefits from them by using the private account formula.

The good thing about this, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that when we get off the agenda of trying to privatize Social Security, then we can do what we have been trying to do all along in a bipartisan way and coming up with great ideas and putting them into action to be able to strengthen Social Security. I hope, as a Member not only of this House, but as a member of the 30-something Working Group, that we can work in a way that, even though we are strengthening Social Security, the money that it will take to strengthen Social Security, that we will not only explain to the American people, but to make sure that ever Member of this House understands that we have to have a way to pay for it. Not just saying that we are going to throw a lot of money in there and not find a way to pay for it, because it is almost like, Mr. Speaker, taking a carton of milk out of the refrigerator and smelling it and saying, wow, it is sour, and putting it back in and maybe it will be fresh tomorrow. It will continue to be an issue for the American people in future generations, and that is something that we have to work on.

I would ask the Members to take a look at The Washington Post article today speaking of the strategy on Social Security. It is nothing that I am going to sit here and say ``we told you so'' as it relates to private accounts, but it is something that is encouraging. Hopefully, Republican leaders will start to say, well, maybe we need to back off this strategy of $944 billion going to Wall Street, and maybe we need to work on strengthening Social Security, making sure that those that elected us to come here know that Social Security is here for future generations, and also for this generation and the baby boomers.

I also believe that a great deal of credit should be given not only to the Members here in Congress, and I would like to commend the very few Members on the Republican side of the aisle that said, no way, Jose on privatizing Social Security. And I am so glad that they are standing against the Republican leadership, and I am so glad on this issue of Social Security, and I am so glad here on the Democratic side, from the beginning, the Democratic leader, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Democratic whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), also the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Menendez), and also the vice chairman, the gentleman from South Carolina (Jim Clyburn), of our leadership on this side of the aisle, all along, without any problems, have said that they are standing shoulder to shoulder with the Democratic Caucus to make sure that we strengthen Social Security, just like we did in the 1980s when Ronald Reagan was in the White House and Tip O'Neill was the Speaker of this House with a bipartisan bill to make sure that we shored it up.

Also, even when we start talking about the history of it, I am glad that President Clinton took the position he did when he took the position of balancing the budget and putting us into surpluses to make sure that we could shore up the Social Security Trust Fund and to know how we were paying for it. We were paying for it with an ever-growing surplus. But right now we do not have that surplus. The majority side and the leadership on the majority side have led us into an almost $7.8 trillion deficit, and I think that we have to work on that.

Mr. Speaker, I see the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) is here, and I am so glad that the gentleman is here, and that the 30-something Working Group is here on the floor once again.

But if I can read into some of the groups that have been out there sharing with the American people about the fact that why do we want to privatize Social Security when it is going to take away benefits; from right from the beginning we were saying you are going to lose somewhere up to 70 percent of the benefits. In some cases individuals will lose benefits, and even if they were not in the private account side of the privatization of Social Security, they would lose 30 percent of their benefits. So that is even saying, well, listen, I want to stay in a system that I have now. You still will lose.

I want to thank those groups for going out there because I say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) if it was not for them, and, Mr. Speaker, I believe that if it was left up to the mechanics of the Beltway here in Washington, DC, I think once again the American people would be a recipient of the Potomac two-step.

I would like to thank the Americans United to Protect Social Security; also thank Rock the Vote, College Democrats, Young Democrats, Progressive Democrats of America; also AFSCME, AFSCME Retiree Program, the National Council of Individuals With Disabilities, the Americans for Democratic Action, the American Nurses Association, the American Public Health Association, the American Association of Community Organizations for Reform, the Alliance for Retired Americans, which is AARP, the largest senior organization here in the United States, America Votes, California Health Advocates, Campaign for America's Future, Center for American Progress, Center for Medicare Advocacy, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Center on Economic Policy and Research, Child Welfare League of America, Coalition of Human Needs, Code Blue Now, Consumers Union, Economic Policy Institute, Families USA, American Baptist Convention, Fair Taxes for All, Independent Living Services, Leadership Council on Civil Rights, Medicare Rights Center; also the National Academy of Social Insurance, the National Association of Area Agencies on Aging, the National Association of Police Organizations, the National Association of Social Workers, the National Coalition on Nursing Home Reform, the National Conference of State Legislators, which is bipartisan, I must add, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, the National Education Association, the National Health Law Program, the National Organization of Social Security, the National Senior Citizens Law Center, the New Democratic Network.

I have just got a couple more.

The gentleman is correct.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure. Against privatization of Social Security. The Subcommittee on Social Security, also you have the Century Foundation, the U.S. Action, Visiting Nurses Association of America, American Corn Growers Association. That is good to have them on board. The Center For Rural Affairs, the Federation of Southern Cooperatives, the League of Rural Voters, the National Catholic Rural Life Conference, the National Family Farm Coalition, Progressive Student Initiative and the 21st Century Democrats.

I am going to put this list in for the record. But I just want to say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), it is always good, and all of the people were not mentioned because we would take a good part of this Special Order talking about those individuals that are out there. But I want to make a case in point.

Young people in America have risen up beyond the expectations of many individuals in the past as it relates to advocacy on this issue of Social Security.

So I am so glad that they are a part of it because that is the reason why the American people are being educated.

Americans United to Protect Social Security; Rock the Vote;

College Democrats; Young Democrats; Progressive Democrats of

America; AFSCME; AFSCME Retiree Program; The US PIRGS;

National Council on Individuals With Disabilities; Americans

for Democratic Action; American Nurses Association; American

Public Health Association; Asthma and Allergy Foundation of

America; Association of Community Organization for Reform Now

(ACORN); Alliance for Retired Americans (AARP); America

Votes; California Health Advocates; CALPERS; Campaign for

America's Future; Center for American Progress; Center for

Medicare Advocacy; Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

(CBPP); Center on Economic Policy and Research; CHC; Child

Welfare League of America; Coalition on Human Needs; Code

Blue Now; Consumers Union; Economic Policy Institute (EPI);

Families USA; Fair Taxes for All; Half The Planet; and HBC

Dems.

Independent Living Services; Leadership Conference for

Civil Rights; Medicare Rights Center; MoveOn; National

Academy of Social Insurance; National Association of Area

Agencies on Aging; National Association of Police

Organizations; National Association of Social Workers;

National Coalition for Nursing Home Reform; National

Conference of State Legislators; National Committee to

Preserve Social Security and Medicare; National Education

Association; National Health Law Program; National

Organization of Social Security Claimants Representatives

(NOSSCR); National Senior Citizens Law Center; New Democratic

Network; Public Citizen; Subcommittee on Social Security,

Committee on Ways and Means; The Century Foundation; United

Cerebral Palsy; USAction; Visiting Nurse Association of

America; American Corn Growers Association; Center for Rural

Affairs; Federation of Southern Cooperatives; League of Rural

Voters; National Catholic Rural Life Conference; National

Family Farm Coalition; Progressive Student Initiative; and

21st Century Democrats.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.

I would say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), for a child that was just born 10 minutes ago already owes $26,349.67, and even that number has gone up. When we have our new chart next week, we will be able to have that new number. Unfortunately it continues to go up, and there is no sight of that number going down. We cannot see the end of the tunnel as it relates to the Federal debt continuing. I see that you have a new chart.

I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

I would say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), the bottom line is that it is important that we not only come to the floor to make sure the Members understand what has happened, because we want to make sure that no one suffers from what one may say amnesia of not knowing what has taken place in this Chamber when the leadership rose to the level of saying that we had to do something about the Federal deficit and we did. I think it is also important for us to understand if we are ever going to have an about-face as it relates to spending, without having a plan to pay for what we are spending, it is going to continue to carry on.

I do not look forward to not only our days left in the 109th Congress, but when the 110th Congress comes in to be able to talk about what took place in the 109th Congress, because we could not stop ourselves from spending irresponsibly. And, you know, serving on the Armed Services Committee, a lot of money, almost $150 billion are going into the war annually. With that, and the forecast of that continuing to take place, and I must say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), it is good to hear the Democratic leader and others push the card on the Republican leadership also as it relates to the White House of coming up with a plan, a plan on how we are going to proceed from this point, because the reason why we want to know what is the plan as it relates to training Iraqi troops is so that our troops can start focusing on other issues and be able to carry out action there in Iraq, versus every day patrol that Iraqi troops could be doing, the training of those troops are important. It is important that the majority side gives us that information so that we are able to make sure that we are on course in having the proper oversight over this war.

Now, we both support our men and women in uniform. We are both on the Armed Services Committee. We both appreciate their commitment and sacrifice, and we give our love and appreciation out to those families that are also making a sacrifice and, unfortunately, those that have made the ultimate sacrifice of losing a loved one.

But what I also think is important, Mr. Speaker, is that we make sure that we have a plan, a forecast plan, because there are domestic needs also that need to be addressed.

The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) is right. A budget comes to this floor. We need something for our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan, I am a yes vote. When education comes to this floor, leave No Child Left Behind, the fully funding of that program, I am a yes vote.

But guess what? It is just not happening. And our leadership, and on the Democratic Caucus side we want to prioritize our children's future just as much as we are prioritizing the future

of the Iraqi people. And so it is important that towns and cities and locations that we both represent, the gentleman being from Ohio, I am being from Florida, that they receive their just due of their Federal tax dollar and making sure they are a part of the solution and their own family needs, versus saying that, well, we are going to continue to make a sacrifice, you know, on behalf of the Iraqi people, versus the individuals that are living in our own communities that we go to church with every day. And it is counterproductive if we do not plan to be able to focus those same kind of dollars and those efforts towards helping local communities.

Do you know that four States have sued the Federal Government for lack of Leave No Child Left Behind funding? Texas is one of those States.

I am going to tell you something, the bottom line is it is about priorities. Do we want to bring about the standardized testing of our children, making sure they are under the umbrella for them to learn, but better yet, we do not want to provide the dollars to make that happen? We do not want to give a teacher an environment where she can teach and children an environment they can learn?

We are saying that, well, you know, do not worry, you have to work it out, and matter of fact, we are going to penalize you if you do not reach the bar. This is why it is important if we worry about these domestic needs, we do something about it.

I want you to share that chart with the Members because I want to talk about what we have in plan and in store if we had Democratic leadership that was in the majority in this House, to be able to carry out some of these plans.

What is important, and I think, Mr. Speaker, it is good for the Members to be able to note the fact that if the situation was different in this House, and when I say the situation, I am saying, if we were in the majority on this side and it was a Democratic House, the discussion about veterans at .3 percent would been a discussion, as a matter of fact, the action would be taken to make sure our veterans are treated the way they should be treated for the service and the freedom that we celebrate every day.

I think it is important because this is not the Kendrick Meek/Tim Ryan Report from Ohio and from Florida. This is what we are getting from the Congressional Budget Office. This is information that is publicly printed in a number of nonpartisan groups that are out there.

I think it is also important for us to talk about our new partnership for America's future, what we are talking about on the Democratic side, and it is good to make sure that everyone understands that by the Democrats being in the minority here in this House, we cannot agenda bills to come before a committee by House rules. We cannot

call a committee hearing. We cannot bring a bill to the floor because of the House rules, because we are in the minority. We cannot say, well, there will be no privatization of Social Security whatsoever and the bill will not come to the floor because we are in the minority.

To be in the majority, it is going to take the American people and also some individuals to continue to focus on the issues that are not happening on behalf of not only our patriots, and patriots come in two forms. Many of them are everyday Americans that are out there, trying to make sure they provide for their families. They go to church, the synagogues, what have you, to the mosques, if they go, and they work hard every day. They expect their piece of the American apple pie.

You have individuals that are going even a step further, those individuals that are wearing the uniform in a forward area, in Iraq and Afghanistan or wherever they may be, individuals that have served this country before. This is our veterans. Those individuals that not only have stories of war and conflict but have stories of real life experience.

When they signed up, we promised them that we would help them in their health care. We promised them that they would not have to wait 6 months to see the ophthalmologist. We promised them that they will receive the respect that they deserve out of this Congress as it relates to making sure they have the necessary funds to be able to carry out the rest of their lives, either with a disability or what have you.

I must report that that is not happening right now. It is important that hopefully we can get some sort of forward movement to get us moving down in the right direction.

We have the new partnership for America's future which is a Democratic plan that has six components, which brings about prosperity, national security, fairness, opportunity, community and accountability.

Accountability, Mr. Speaker, is pivotal in this debate as it relates to balancing the national debt or making sure that we do not have a deficit at about $8 trillion number. Accountability is making sure that we pass a Leave No Child Left Behind Act, that we fund it and that we stand by our States and we stand by our children or our future generations, to be able to do what the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) was talking about, of making sure that they are prepared to carry out the jobs that we need them to carry out. We are being outcompeted in other areas because our kids are not carrying the mathematics and some other areas, the sciences, that they need.

So the Leave No Child Left Behind Act was put into place to hopefully bring about that kind of accountability, and guess what, it was a bipartisan effort. Guess what again, it is not a bipartisan effort to fund it. It is being underfunded, and if we were in the majority here in the House, it would have better funding. The gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), Democratic leader, has said that she will fully fund Leave No Child Left Behind. That is a major statement, and better yet, an action that would take place because she said it would happen.

Just like we are bold in saying we will make sure that the millionaires and billionaires get their tax cuts, we are going to make sure that our children are educated. Guess what, again, here is another thing. They are Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, Green Party, Reform Party households. No one's picking and choosing. We are saying all of America's children should receive that kind of leadership and that kind of accountability.

A perfect example, when we talk about opportunity within our six principles and we talk about community and we talk about prosperity, we are the 30 Something Working Group. We have individuals that are going to school and leaving college with what, 20, $30,000 in debt. Am I correct?

They are leaving in debt. Better yet, the administration gives them a bad hand of cards in saying that we want you to go to college, we want you to educate yourself. Individuals are running around here, going to commencement ceremonies throughout the United States of America saying that we are with you, but better yet, as it relates to the Pell grant obligation, it is because they changed their formulary it is going to be $300 million coming out of that formula, which is going to take the cost up of Pell grants in the year 2005, 2006.

I do not think that is a message of what we should do, but I can tell you what we are doing on this end. There is legislation that has already been filed, and which I have signed on to and you are signed on to, to replace that $300 million back in so that the Pell grant opportunity for kids that want to better themselves and move on and educate themselves, that they do not have to end up paying what you may call this, I call it a $300 million tax. When you change the formula and you go up and you give them a greater responsibility, you are taxing them, but better yet, you want to make tax cuts permanent for those individuals that are slamming Cadillac doors here in the United States, eating lunch at some of the finest restaurants in this country, walking around here, not even worrying about how we are going to pay the rent. They are collecting the rent, but better yet, we want to send our young people into a fixed situation.

We already know that on average kids are leaving school with 20, $30,000 in debt, which means they are going to be living at home with mom or dad or grandmother or someone because they cannot get a loan to be able to buy a house because you do not come out of college making a lot of money to be able to make that happen.

So I am glad on this side of the aisle, if anyone wants to know the difference between what is going on in the majority side, and I do not want to generalize because there are some individuals on the majority side who see it the way we see it. They see it the way we see it. They know that this is an important effort and that we have to make sure that we stand up for our children.

It is important we move beyond personalities and look at what is actually taking place and what is not taking place. I think it is important looking at the numbers that we understand that it is just not happening.

When we dealt with the whole Medicare issue and we dealt with prescription drugs, the majority side, the leadership on the majority side came over and told us it would cost $350 billion. They also said that it would cost $400 billion. Now it is well over $400 billion; matter of fact, it is even closer to $500 billion.

There was the same information that came to this House regarding the weapons of mass destruction. We had prima facie evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction. But no weapons of mass destruction.

There was also an initiative that came to the floor by the majority, now majority side, that said we are going to do something about health care, and the President said, well, we are going to have these health care savings accounts, and everyone will be able to save, and everyone will be able to have good health care. Still, today, we have millions upon millions of working families without health care, families that go to work every day that do not have a health care plan.

Public hospitals and private hospitals are going under throughout this country, and not because they are bad managers. It is because they do not have the necessary attention or the funds that they need from this Federal Government to be able to provide health care to the everyday American.

Mr. Speaker, it is important that everyone understands that what my colleague and I are talking about here right now is doing something about the issues that are facing everyday Americans. Everyday Americans, Democrat, Republican, Independent, Green Party, Reform Party, you name it, we are out there trying to help them. We want to make sure that they get the butter from the duck.

We want to make sure, as we start talking about devolution of taxation, that when we cut funding to State and local governments, the difference between us and them is the fact that we can reach back in our pocket, and I will not even use my big credit card today, matter of fact I do not even have my credit card in my wallet, but I have my debit card. If we were to take a card out and say, fine, we will put another $3 billion on the credit card. That is fine, we will put it away. Matter of fact, no, we will not put it away, we will just throw it away. We will throw it away because we do not have to pay for it. It is someone else who has to pay for it.

Let our kids pay for it. Let someone else worry about paying for it. But as relates to the State governments, they have to balance their budgets, and the reason why they have to balance their budget is that they have a balanced budget amendment. Many States do. They cannot deficit spend. So they cut education, tuition goes up, and in many of the States Medicaid reform, oh, my goodness, it is just a travesty what is happening in many of these programs that have helped so many people. And transportation dollars on the State level is drying up.

So when we get down to the county commissioners or the cities or the town, or what have you, municipal governments, which way are they going to turn?

Then guess what? The local folks start seeing the millage rate go up from the school board. They start putting these local bond referendums on the ballots, because they do not have the money. Meanwhile, we are sitting up here in Washington talking about what is the problem, we have not raised your taxes? Yes, we have, we have raised your taxes.

I want to correct myself, because in my last statement I said we here, as a Congress, raise taxes. No, we did not; the majority side who came up with a strategy on how we can cut funding in certain areas did, and that is the reason why those States are suing the Federal Government right now. We have given them an unfunded mandate.

When my constituents woke up at 7 a.m. on a given Tuesday morning last November, they did not go to the voting booth and take their voter registration card out and say, well, Congressman, I am going to vote for you to make sure you have better health care than I have, you and your family; or to make sure as relates to undue taxes or what have you that you can raise my taxes, and I will vote on me raising my

own taxes. That is why I am sending you to Congress.

No, better yet, I am sending you to Congress to make sure you do nothing about health care. Matter of fact, take my credit card, use it, because I am going to have to pay it off. I am going to let you use it. That is like sending someone to the mall that you know has a problem with shopping and saying, do not worry about it, take it to the maximum.

Can I have my credit card? I said I was not going to pull it out, but I am. My congressional spending card right here, the numbers are going up so fast, I keep having to change the numbers. The thing about our credit card, unlike any other credit card in the wallets of everyday Americans, is that it just keeps going and going and going and going to the tune of $7.8 trillion.

Now, I know my colleague wants to say something, but let me just say this. For those individuals on the majority side that want to say, boy, those Democrats, they just tax and spend, look at the deficit. I want to know where they are now? I cannot even hear them. I do not even see them. Where are they? Where are these fiscal conservatives? Where are they? They are nowhere to be found. You go out in the hall and say, conservative, it just keeps echoing, conservative, conservative, conservative. Where are they?

So we have not been in the majority here, I would say, for 10 years now? Maybe 10 years. Maybe 8?

Going on 11. Once again, I want to make sure everyone understands that we have to be in the majority to be able to run this House. So everything that takes place in this House and comes to this floor and goes before a committee, the agendas in committees, and bills moving, and appropriations and all of that is done by the majority side because they are in the majority.

In some instances, to be very truthful, we are able to work out some bipartisan efforts sometimes. We have a lot of votes that go up on the board where we are all together on the post offices and the Federal buildings, the naming of those post offices and the Federal buildings. But when it comes to issues like the budget, the Federal deficit, health care, education, in many cases we are not together, and that is unfortunate.

This is nothing we would like to see continued. We would like to work in a bipartisan way. You know, I have Republican constituents, and I have Independent constituents, and I have all the other parties even though I am a Democrat. And they go and vote for what? Leadership. They are going to vote for leadership.

So I want to make sure that Members understand, and before my colleague got here I was sharing with the Speaker and the Members the fact that I am glad that there are some leaders in this Congress that have said we need an exit strategy on the privatization issue.

That is in The Washington Post today. It is just not flying back home to say we are going to private accounts, and if you are in the private account or not, you are still going to lose benefits, but this is what we are doing to shore up Social Security. We can shore up Social Security and strengthen Social Security without private accounts. I am glad we have leaders here that can carry that message on.

Mr. Speaker, I send my condolences to the family. We appreciate the commitment of our men and women in uniform who pay the ultimate sacrifice.

Mr. Speaker, would the gentleman give our Web site out.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that we close out by not only thanking the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi) and the rest of the leadership here on the Democratic side of the aisle for allowing us to take advantage of this hour, also the new Partnership for America's Future. We talked about the six principles if we had the opportunity to be able to lead within this House, which are values of prosperity, national security, fairness, opportunity, community, and also accountability.

Accountability is making sure that we deal with issues such as health care, making sure our troops have what they need as it relates to national security, making sure our children have opportunities, making sure that every American is paying tax dollars which are spent in the way that they are supposed to be spent and bring about the kind of fairness that they deserve from their Federal tax dollars. And also opportunity, making sure our children have opportunities, that we do what we are supposed to do as the Federal Government in holding up our end of the deal.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize and pay tribute to the late Patrick L. Connolly, a long-time resident of Miami and a person who unselfishly donated his time, intelligence and efforts to helping improve the educational opportunities for thousands of Floridians as a Board Member of Barry University in Miami Shores, Florida.

Mr. Connolly was a special kind of man who really had two careers in his lifetime. He built a very successful career in the delivery business in both the Minneapolis and Atlanta markets. He served as president of Air Courier Dispatch Inc. of Minnesota, as Chairman of the Board for Mail Dispatch Inc., and as president of Courier Dispatch in Atlanta.

When he retired from his business to live in South Florida, he was not content to sit back and simply enjoy the fruits of his labor. He became actively involved in the community, joining the Board of Trustees of what was then Barry College for Women in 1978, and remained an active member of the board for 27 years until he passed away last week. During this time, he planned and oversaw the growth of Barry into a major educational institution with a national reputation in health sciences and minority education. He helped establish a scholarship in the name of Barry's 4th president, Sister Trinita Flood. He also led an executive council which helped revise the bylaws for the Advisory Board of the Andreas School of Business. He donated generously to Barry's capital campaigns, earning the designation as member of the Society of Founders. He became a member of the University's Covenant Society, by remembering Barry in his estate planning.

Mr. Connolly's name will always be associated with the institution he loved, Barry University. He embodied the spirit of Barry through his commitment and dedication to Catholic higher education. By any standard, he was a remarkable man, and he will be missed by his family, his friends, his extended family at Barry University, and by the countless people he never met who were given opportunities in life because of his efforts.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to a truly great role model and a truly great educator--the late Ms. Thelma Stinson, former Principal of the Lillie C. Evans Elementary School located in Miami's Liberty City community in my Congressional District.

Her passing away provides us with the sobering thought of the dignity of the human spirit and the fragility of life. Even though she was sick with cancer, Ms. Stinson often went straight from the hospital to her school because she felt so deeply about helping her students. By every measure, she was enormously successful.

Ms. Stinson started working for the Dade County School Board in 1968 as a librarian, then as a special-education teacher and assistant principal before becoming Principal of Lillie C. Evans in late 2000.

Under her leadership at Lillie C. Evans, the school proudly rose from an F-graded school in 2001-2002 to an A-graded school in 2003-2004. ``The school's turnaround is a testament to her leadership and her commitment,'' said district spokesman Joseph Garcia. Ms. Stinson also reached out to the community by ensuring that parents were also schooled in the basic skills of reading, math and the sciences through regular sessions at night. Simply put, Ms. Stinson literally bridged the gap between her school and her students' homes, making parental involvement an essential part of the teaching and learning process.

In spite of the odds, Ms. Stinson truly demonstrated to all those called upon by public service that excellence and achievement are never beyond the reach of those willing to make the commitment and dare to dream what seems to most people to be the impossible. She was a source of light--more like a beacon in the night--in our community and in the lives of student and adults alike. It is impossible to measure the impact of a person like Ms. Stinson, for her legacy will live on in all the young lives she touched, for whom she created new possibilities and new opportunities that, without her special touch, would never had existed.

It is sadly inadequate to say that she will be sorely missed. I extend my deepest condolences to her mother Ceola Thompson, brother Errol Thompson, sister Esther Blackshear, daughter Twyla Hilton, her grandsons, her friends and her students.