Kendrick Meek

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. 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.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. 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. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. 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.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

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

Mr. MEEK of Florida. You love your charts.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. All the veterans organizations stand firmly with him, but guess what? They stand firmly with him off the committee right now, because that is where he is. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) is right. I am glad he corrected me. Not only was he removed as chairman, his stationery does not even have the name of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs on it any more because they moved him off the committee. So I am saying that I do not, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) does not, and the 30-something Working Group does not apologize for bringing light to the issue of the fact that we are going to talk about veterans and talk about mom and apple pie and drape ourselves in the flag and get all choked up down here and raise our voice talking about how we love the veterans. Well, the real deal comes down to who is running the House, what the veterans are getting and what they are not getting. And I will tell my colleagues right now, they are not getting that. Now, I am going to yield back to the gentleman, but I have a few points that we must make on Social Security before we leave that, because the veterans issue, we can go on for 12 hours on that. We also have to talk about Mr. Rove and what he is sharing with members of the media, putting CIA agents in jeopardy. But that is a whole other issue. It is a serious issue that we have to deal with, especially in the middle of this effort against terrorism, global terrorism. Now, let me just say, I am just going to take this moment since we are pausing here for a minute, so we do not have to come back to it, the issue on Social Security. Now, there has been some news report, the gentleman mentioned the Washington Times, which I think that they are not necessarily, like the gentleman said, a liberal newspaper, as a matter of fact, the most conservative one, one of the most conservative newspapers here in Washington, D.C., and they are talking about what is going on as it relates to the leadership between the White House, the House, and the other body across the hall about the whole debate of Social Security. I think it is important that they point out here in this article that was published on July 10 by Ms. Fagan, Amy, the President continues to campaign for comprehensive reform of a system, but Democrats oppose what they call ``privatization,'' and what is privatization, I must add parenthetically. Congressional Republican leaders realize the public expects action after hearing about the issue for months, that from one of my colleagues from Florida that will go unnamed at this time; but if my colleagues want to get the article, they can. ``We've told everyone the House is on fire. It is time to offer them a fire hose or a bucket, or maybe a glass of water, depending on what the Senate can pass.'' Fighting amongst themselves on privatization. Another headline, Congressional Daily. This is the publication that comes out here under the Capitol dome for not only staffers, but those individuals who are working on issues within the Federal Government, Federal Government issues, especially legislative, let you know what is going on. ``White House Still Pressing For Robust Private Accounts.'' Now, I am going to tell my colleagues that it is important, and that is also an article from 7/6/05 if anyone wants to look it up, any of the Members want to take a look at it. It is important that we read not only these articles, but we take part in what goes into these articles. I will tell my colleague one thing. This whole issue of saying we are going to continue to say privatization until we have privatization will not work. The article goes on to say, we believe the majority of Republicans are for privatization, private accounts. I do not believe that is true at this moment. I will tell my colleague another reason why it is something that I think that Republicans will make a career decision. I think the people of America, once they learn more about privatization of Social Security, will know that, A, they will lose benefits; B, it will increase the deficit; C, it will not bring a better situation to their overall need of Social Security in the long run. So once that happens, I say to the gentleman, I think it is important that people understand, even some of our Republican friends understand that if they want to make a career decision just to get along with some members of the leadership on their side, they may very well be handing their seat over to someone else, either in their own party or maybe a Democrat replacing them. Because Americans overall, they watch out for family and making sure that they are able to provide for future generations and that they are secure. So one other little piece here as it relates to another article I think is important. It came out of an Ohio paper, about a truck carrying Social Security debate to the steps of Congress. They sent a flatbed with a million signatures saying, no privatization of Social Security. Make sure Social Security is in surplus; yes, do that, but no privatization of Social Security. People are seeing this, Democrats and Republicans alike. So these are just a few articles that I was able to pull up. I wanted to take some of the articles that were considered ``mainstream media'' and also ``conservative media'' to show that there is a nexus there of shedding light on the issue that this issue of privatization is not a great idea. What we stand for on this side of the aisle is making sure that, A, we keep the integrity of Social Security and we do not drive the deficit all the way into the ground in trying to go to private accounts. That is what we are asking for. We are asking for also, Madam Speaker, a bipartisan debate, not only debate, but action of Democrats and Republicans working together, like we did when Tip O'Neill was sitting in that seat, Speaker Tip O'Neill, and Ronald Reagan was in the White House. I do not think that is too much to ask for in this debate.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. For doing what? For doing the right thing.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. What I am saying is that the reality of the situation is the fact that veterans are waiting a long time. Some veterans are not receiving the care that they deserve. Veterans that are returning back from theater, and the gentleman is on the Committee on Armed Services and so am I, they cannot even get an appointment at the VA. These are true statements. Just before the July 4 break, 2 weeks ago, we reported that one of the highest priorities of the Under Secretary of Veterans Affairs was to make sure that the Veterans Affairs Secretary's picture was posted at every VA hospital and clinic throughout the country. That was the topic of a conference call. Thank God some of the people that were the administrators of the Veterans Affairs were appalled by it and said, our real issue is trying to pay for meds and to make sure that we are able to provide for the veterans who are walking through our doors, that we have what they need to be able to make themselves whole and to be able to make themselves healthy. We are selling furniture; we are thinking about things in our budget that we can move to provide some level of care to these veterans. Now, I say to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), I cannot wait to really dive into the issue of the whole veterans issue, because I can tell my colleague right now, I do not care what one's party affiliation is. If there is an American out there that is not registered and there are Americans out there who are not registered to vote, if you participate in the democratic process and elections, good. If you do not, this issue is still your issue. If you believe that you do not want anything to do with government, or you think there is too much government in your life or too less government, not enough government in your life, this is your issue. The bottom line is, we have individuals that have stood in harm's way recently, not just several, 4 or 5 years ago, 300 yards from the enemy that was trained to kill them, who are not even able to receive primary care from the VA hospital. Not because the VA hospital employees and administrators are not willing to provide that care; it is the fact that here in this Congress decisions were made on the majority side not to provide the funding that is needed to make sure that veterans are able to receive what we told them we were going to give them. Now, I do not care what anyone says about the whole issue of Democrat versus Republican. We are under one flag, okay? And the bottom line is, we talked about the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Smith) and what happened to him, the former chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, what happened to him. He was removed.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Not because the leadership on the opposite side thought it was the right thing to do. It is because we came to the floor and members of the committee ran amendments, and newspaper articles were printed, the fact that we have veterans clinics that are only open once or twice a month to assist veterans. That is the reason why.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. How about the individual that is retired, veterans who have served our country?

Mr. MEEK of Florida. It is important. Our job is to be able to speak the truth, share, not only with the Members, but with the leadership what is happening, what is not happening. But I just want to back up here. You mentioned a June 24th date that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) offered the amendment. Because I like third party validators to make sure that folks do not think that we are coming to the floor, we are having a little pregame, we talk about, well, you say it like this, I say it like that, and who cares if we are telling the truth or not. House Resolution 3010, the vote was number 320, on June 24, 2005, failed on a partisan vote 185 to 216. Republicans voted against that opportunity to add in a billion dollars to the Veterans Affairs legislation to shore up the shortfall. On June 28, a couple of days later, Republicans rejected a Democratic attempt to make up the shortfall in the House. Once again, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Edwards) leading Democrats down the area of making sure in the Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill to be able to provide for our veterans throughout this country. H.R. 3057, vote number 325, June 28, 2005, failed 217 to 189; once again, the majority stopping the Democrats from assisting our veterans in the way that we want to assist them. I would even go further on to say, on June 29th, a day later, where the Senate approved, and this is important, because you talked about this, but I just want to go further into it; the Senate understood what Democrats were trying to do here, or the other body understood what Democrats tried to do here on the floor. And there was a Member that said we need to be able, when we get into conference, match up on the $1.5 billion effort to make sure that we give Veteran Affairs some of what they need, not all, a $1.5 billion effort. We then came to the floor, Democrats, once again. The other body passed it 96 to zero, 96 to zero Senate vote on June 29th of this year. On June 30th, we had a vote here on the floor right before the break, to go on the break for Independence Day Break. Republicans blocked procedurally that effort from happening, and did not want to put in the amount of money that the Democrats were looking to put in. And I think that it is important that we understand that they wanted to add $300 million, saying, when we get to conference, we will kind of figure it out, when we could have matched up with the Senate, or with the other body I must add, in making sure that there would be no question, and that veterans will not be in a holding pattern, and Veterans Affairs administrators will not say, maybe if, I do not know, if we get the 1.5 this is what we will be able to do to provide care for our men and women that are coming out of the theatre, and those men and woman that have served in World War II and other conflicts, Korea, Vietnam, what have you, first Gulf and so on. Making sure that they receive the benefits, Grenada, making sure that they receive what they deserve. Bosnia, making sure that they receive what they deserve. So like you said, what is the difference? Well, the difference is that we are here fighting on behalf of not only veterans, this is not the only issue, we are fighting on making sure that Social Security is there for every American for the future and that they have as many benefits as they need to be able to survive. We are also here to make sure that working Americans can make a livable wage and also to promote not only health care, but education. So when folks start talking about what is the difference, there is a big difference. And it is right here in the record. And so if we have to take the journal and pull it out and start talking about where there has been Democratic leadership and where there has been Republicans standing in the schoolhouse door, then we will do that. And, hopefully, one of two things will happen: Either the American people will say enough is enough, just because someone says I need to vote a certain way, and I am going to vote that way because I am who I am and my father and mother and what have you have been a Republican; it is not about Republican. It is not about Democratic. It is not about independent. It is about leadership. It is about making sure that we do what we are supposed to when we are supposed to on behalf of the country. What I want to do, I know that you have your chart there, but I want to talk a little bit about homeland security when we come to the floor next week. Because I am very, very concerned about some of the issues that I am hearing, especially after the London transit bombing attacks. We are fine. We have moved mass transit security to a higher level. We are in good shape. I think it is important that we share with the American people, and also with the Members of the House that may not be aware, that we are not fine, and that there are things that we should be doing on behalf of every American to make sure that they are secure. Because if we are walking around saying we are fine, that means that we really have no work to do, and we have a lot of work to do. So I am glad that you took the record out, and you have your chart and I have my piece of paper, about what is actually happening as it relates to Veterans Affairs, what has happened, what is happening to veterans. And we are here, even though we are in the minority, doing what we can to make sure that they have a voice on this floor, amongst many other Members that are also doing good work and making sure that they have voice in this Congress and the battle continues, and we want them to be with us in that battle.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, once again, it is an honor to not only address the House but the American people also at the same time. Madam Speaker, we would like to thank the Democratic leader for allowing us to have the 30-something Working Group once again here before the House. The 30-something Working Group is comprised of Members that are in the 30-somethings and 20-somethings on the Democratic side here in the House, and we come together on a weekly basis to talk about issues here on the floor that are facing Americans and also issues that will be facing Americans in the future. We think our purpose here in this Congress is to, A, talk about those things that are working, put forth proposals that will make life easier for future generations and those generations that are rearing children now as we speak, such as myself, and that are trying to provide for their families, such as myself. But the average American, we give voice to them. We make sure that even if they have retired, issues like Social Security, issues like national security, issues like health care, the Federal debt, that are going to bring challenges to their homefront, that we give them voice here in this Congress. Being in the minority, every week, Madam Speaker, I always share not only with the Members but everyone within the sound of my voice that in the minority, by the House rules, the majority side runs the agenda: what comes to the floor, what goes to committees, who comes before the committees, what will be the agenda in those committees. And I think it is important for people to understand that and also for Members to be reminded. So many of the issues that are facing our veterans, many of the issues that are facing everyday families as it relates to health care, education, the environment, general things, homeland security, what our men and women get in Iraq and what they do not get in Afghanistan, what have you, goes through the process here, and it is a majority/minority process. Some pieces of legislation we are able to work on in a bipartisan level. The main issues that are facing Americans are, unfortunately, partisan in many ways, not by what I will call the everyday Republican and Democrat, but as it relates to individuals in leadership. We have been talking for several weeks, Madam Speaker, on the issue of Social Security. We are going to talk about that some more tonight. I think it is also important to talk about issues that have taken place. We had our birthday recently just out here on the Washington Mall, July 4th, which was an outstanding celebration not only giving honor to those that have served in past conflicts but the fathers of our country for standing up on behalf of the very freedom that they provided us and we live under today. Also, we had an opportunity to look at the issues of the minimum wage increase proposal that came before this House that was presented by Democrats here, making sure that Americans will have more to take home in their pockets to provide for their families, but, unfortunately, that did not turn out the way we wanted it to. And also, Madam Speaker, we would be remiss if we did not address the issue of a possible breach of national security as it relates to the outing of a CIA agent by an adviser in the White House, and there is a lot of discussion not only going on throughout the country but also here in the Congress. So kind of setting out some of the issues that we will talk about tonight, those are the main issues. But I want to just open up and talk a little bit about the Social Security issue. As the Members know, for several weeks, there has been a lot of discussion. The President flew around, spent a lot of Federal jet fuel at taxpayers' expense trying to make us belief that there was a crisis, an outright crisis, that the roof was going to cave in on Social Security if we did not move towards privatization. And I think that, not only in recent weeks but in recent days, the American people have told the White House that they are not in love--neither do they want Social Security to be privatized. Claude Pepper, from the very State that I am from, fought on this floor and stood where I am standing now and in the well, fighting for Social Security not only for the retirees but for those Americans that receive disability benefits, for those young children that are receiving survivor benefits, and privatization was nowhere in the discussion. So being from Florida and understanding the significance of Social Security, understanding that it is social and security at the same time for those Americans that have put in the hours of work and commitment of paying into a system that will be there for them when they need it, not to pay into the system, to invest and gamble with their retirement or with their security if they were to get hurt on the job. So the proposals that are there now, the President came out with a privatization proposal, and then we had some Members on the majority side, the Republican side, that came out with a proposal that was also privatization. Let us just put it this way: He said, My plan is privatization, and without privatization, Social Security will not work. Their plan is saying, We are going to take from the trust fund and we are going to move some things around and make a right and a left. But at the end of the game, it is still privatization. I think that, as we continue this debate here in Congress, I want to commend some of my friends on the Republican side that do not see it the way some of their colleagues see it as it relates to the privatization of Social Security. I commend them for standing up to those individuals, but I also especially commend my Democratic leadership from day one, not, well, we decided to get on the side of right after the American people said that they rejected the thought or they continue to reject the thought of privatization. We were there all along. We have some of our Republican colleagues that are saying, I am not with my leadership on this. So for the leadership on the said committee that handles Social Security, I think it is important that we identify that. Why do we come to the floor? We come to the floor to shed light and let Members on the floor in this Congress know that we know exactly what some Members are up to as it relates to watching out more for privatization versus shoring up and making sure that Social Security is there for future generations. I think they're well intended, but I believe that they are married to privatization more than they are married to making sure that Social Security is there. So the gentleman from the great State of Ohio (Mr. Ryan), my very good friend and our co-chair of the 30-something Working Group, it is good to be on the floor with him again. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. MEEK of Florida. I am glad that you broke it down even further as it relates to the whole Veterans Affairs issue and where our priorities are and where they are not right now. I think it is also important for us to shed light on this question of national security. 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

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, the real issue here is the fact that even when the veterans receive more money, does my colleague know why they receive more money?

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

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, we have a couple of more minutes left. I want to make sure we do what we always do and give the information out, not only to the Members but to make sure everyone understands how to get in contact with us. What we are talking to as it relates to the letter and the Committee on Government Reform, people can go to our Web site, www.housedemocrats.gov/pinkslip. That is housedemocrats.gov/pinkslip.

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. 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. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. 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. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what they are doing.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, once again, we had another good 30- something Working Group Special Order. We look forward to coming back after we celebrate our independence on the Fourth of July. As my colleagues know, here on the Washington Mall we have quite a celebration and throughout America in many small towns and cities. We will be coming back to the floor to talk about Social Security, factual information, and to talk about how Democrats are part of the solution. I must say, once again, we are not here to generalize. We have some Republicans on the other end that are totally against the privatization of Social Security and totally for the full funding, as the gentleman from New Jersey (Chairman Smith) was, as it relates to veterans affairs, doing better by our veterans. Seventy percent of the individuals who are fighting in Iraq are young people who are doing what they have to do. Mr. Speaker, with that, we would like to not only thank the Democratic leader but the Democratic leadership for allowing us to come again.

Mr. MEEK of Florida. And, Mr. Speaker, that is the reason why we are here. It is not about winning or losing under the Capitol dome. It is about the American people being able to win and keep confidence within this body. And I will tell my colleagues now, looking at the recent poll numbers, they do not feel good about what is happening here in Congress. There was an article on Friday, and it was in The Washington Post: ``GOP Sounded the Alarm but didn't Respond to'' the issue of Social Security. And I would recommend Members take a look at this. It was written by Michael Allen, and I just want to take an excerpt out of this. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) mentioned something about winning, wanting to win. We are here to win on behalf of the American people; and one Republican Member of the other body, not this House but the other body, and I know that Members understand that we have the legislative branch, judicial branch, and executive branch but the legislative branch consists of the House and the Senate. But in the other body I must add that if the Republicans take this to a vote and the Democrats try to stop us, we will end up as the winners. That comes from a Member of the 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. MEEK of Florida. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.

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

Mr. MEEK of Florida

Mr. MEEK of Florida. 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.