[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 136 (Tuesday, September 30, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H9014-H9020]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
AMERICAN WORKING FAMILIES BEAR THE BURDEN OF IRAQ BLUNDER
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Burgess). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 7, 2003, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Owens) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. OWENS. Mr. Speaker, we are all glad that Saddam Hussein has been
dethroned. It is better for the world. It is better for Iraq. But the
cost is too great and has been too great in dollars, and we now are
considering another $87 billion. We have already invested more than $70
billion. The regular defense budget is also enormous, and that has been
expended, and there is no end in sight. We will have more requests for
more money.
The cost has been too great. We have not achieved any greater amount
of security from terrorism. In fact, we are less secure from terrorism
now than we were before we invaded Iraq. We have been forced to
concentrate all of our energies, all of our priorities, our best minds,
everything has been concentrated in Iraq, ignoring the threat in
Afghanistan and the borders of Pakistan.
The overwhelming burden of the Iraq blunder, however, has been placed
on the backs of working families. The actual troops out there are from
working families. We all support our troops. We all want to do whatever
is necessary to make certain that those troops come home. We want to do
whatever is necessary to support them to guarantee that they have a
chance to come home. The overwhelming burden of the Iraq blunder,
however, should not remain on the backs of working families.
Mismanagement should not cause more unnecessary suffering and more
death among working families, relatives of people who are from working
families.
The New York Times documented what we all knew already, that more
than 90 percent of the members of the military are from working
families. More than 90 percent of the people in Iraq are from working
families. This is true for the war in Iraq, as it has been true for
most other wars.
{time} 2145
We know in the Civil War, the people who had money could buy their
way out of the draft and pay someone else to go in their place. But, in
general, draft boards and drafts in cases of the war in Vietnam and
Korea and so forth have ended up selecting large numbers of working
family members.
The greatest generation that celebrated winning World War II had many
components, class-wise, but the overwhelming number of people who lost
their lives in World War II were also people who were in working
families.
Working families are very special to America. Working families have a
right to make a claim on America. And what concerns me, and the reason
I am here today, is that we do not seem to understand the importance of
working families, the people who are in charge, the people who are in
power continue to treat working families as if they were expendable,
that they are not important.
We heard some discussion of the welfare bill before today. It was
technical, and it was probably difficult to understand, but that is one
of the greatest harassments of working families you are going to find,
the present welfare legislation, which provides a family of four is
given a subsidy of $6,000 or $7,000 per year, while at the same time we
give subsides to agribusiness of more than $250,000 per year. One more
treatment, one more example of the treatment of working families.
We need to take a hard look at this war in Iraq and what it is doing
to us. We need to stop the war for many reasons. We need to stop the
war because it is absorbing large amounts of cash that can be used for
other purposes, for purposes that we need here at home to improve our
economy and to improve the lot of all of us, including the lot of
working families.
This great Nation's survival and its freedom are directly dependent
on the courage and the devotion of men and women from working families.
The blunder has been committed already. We are mired in a deep pit. We
cannot leave now. The sons and daughters of working families must
remain on the dangerous front lines. But at least we could support
those troops in a better manner, not in the current superficial manner
being mouthed by so many while at the same time they undercut our
troops.
We need to understand that in very concrete ways, we are betraying
the troops in Iraq who are from working families. The kinds of programs
that have been promulgated by the Republican leadership are outrageous.
Patriotic and meaningful support means that we must address some of the
following issues, and we must do it immediately:
The conflict must be better managed so that there is multinational
participation in the decision-making and a clear exit strategy to bring
these American troops home. The best we can do for our troops, the most
important thing we can do for them, is to bring them home. It has to be
an honorable exit. We do not want to leave the job half done. We have
to make certain that no other leader like Saddam Hussein is ever able
to take control of Iraq.
We want to encourage democracy as much as possible. The first step
toward doing that is to share the decision-making with other nations
and have other nations get involved because they know they can
participate in the decision-making. They will then commit troops and
commit equipment and other things. And, most of all, they will be there
to send a message to the Iraqi population that Americans are not trying
to take over their country, occupy their country, and control the
tremendous oil fields that lie beneath that country. That would be one
way to say to working families, we care about the troops, we care about
your son and daughter. We are going to make that effort.
With regard to the United Nations, this administration has only
offered a cold shoulder, despite the difficulty that we are in. We are
not moving to try to convince the rest of the world that we are ready
to share decision-making with Iraq. We are ready to go some extra
lengths, swallow our pride, do some things we said we would never do,
put away our anger, and do what will promote a solution, the fastest
possible solution in Iraq. That is what we can do for our troops. They
deserve it.
There are some other direct benefits that the sons and daughters of
working families over there deserve. They deserve adequate equipment
and they deserve troops, a troop contingent, enough troops to make it
safer for them. There are not enough troops in Iraq. They are not
adequately equipped.
We heard some speeches before from some visitors who went over. I
found them very interesting. John Murtha, who has been on the Committee
on Armed Services for two decades, made the same trip, came back and
was incensed and angered by the fact that the morale was so low and
obvious needs in equipment and supplies were not being met. And he
immediately demanded that the President fire the people who were in
charge of the war in Iraq.
John Murtha, the gentleman from Pennsylvania, who has long experience
in the Committee on Armed Services, saw an outrageous performance in
terms of the leadership who planned and executed the war in Iraq.
Rotation rights have been sort of dismissed. Even in the war in
Vietnam, there was a right of a soldier not to be placed at risk for
more than a year. A year in combat, placing your life at risk, was all
that was demanded. You could rotate out of Vietnam after a year. Those
rights have not been guaranteed to the people in Iraq, soldiers,
regular soldiers or Reservists.
The worst thing is the people who are in the Reserves, who thought
they were going for a 6-month stint, have now
[[Page H9015]]
had their time extended. Worse still for the people in the Reserves
there is no economic justice. People in the Reserves gave up jobs. They
were not career people. Yes, they signed up, and they knew that they
would have to go in case of an emergency, but they were not career
military people. And they did not want to give up their income and
their jobs, leave their families indefinitely, but they had to do that.
They were forced to do that.
We have behaved so abominably toward those working families that a
Washington Post article of yesterday describes it as unacceptable,
almost atrocious. It is a legislative atrocity that they described. I
am going to read from this article in which the Washington Post
described what is being done to Reservists in this war in Iraq. ``A
proposal to close any pay gap faced by civil service employees who are
called to active duty in the military reserves will not be considered
by the House and Senate negotiators working on the fiscal 2004 Defense
authorization bill.''
Now, this brings it home to us. We mouth our concern about supporting
the troops and here is an example of how little we are supporting the
troops, especially the Reservists, how we hold them in contempt really.
``In May the House Government Reform Committee approved an amendment
sponsored by Representatives Tom Lantos and Chris Bell aimed at
requiring Federal agencies to make up the difference between civil
service and military pay for those on military duty.'' The provision
was one of several civil service changes but, hear me carefully, a
civil servant working for the Federal Government, who happens to be in
the military Reserves, goes to Iraq; he is paid at the same rate as any
other soldier, but he left a job that was paying far more. He left a
family that had been nurtured on an income of more.
If the Federal Government still had him on the payroll, it would cost
them a certain amount of money. If they continue to pay him at the same
rate, it does not cost them any more money, it just keeps him at the
same rate while he is off doing his duty for his country under very
difficult circumstances. But they did not agree to that.
``The provision was dropped when the Armed Services panel put
together the House version of the defense authorization bill. That
version sets out guidelines for weapons and equipment purposes and for
troop strength. The Lantos bill amendment stalled because of its cost:
$160 million over 5 years including $75 million in fiscal 2004.''
Hear me carefully: It would have cost the government, the Federal
Government, $160 million over 5 years, including $75 million in fiscal
2004. But if those same people had remained in their jobs, they would
have been paid the $160 million over 5 years and $75 million. And the
Federal Government was not called upon to do any more than they would
have done if there had been no war in Iraq. I find that atrocious. I
find the behavior of this Congress under the Republican majority
leadership to be atrocious.
More important, in another outrageous observation, however, were
objections from the Defense Department, which argued that making up
differences in pay for civil service employees would undercut military
morale. You have two sergeants, one a career military and one a
Reservist doing the same job. And essentially the government is paying
the civilian employee more for that service than the career military
guy. That is the heart of the Defense Department objection. Listen to
that carefully. It would undercut military morale to have a citizen who
was earning an income at a certain level from the Federal Government,
who was there against his will, he did it out of duty, has been shipped
to Iraq, and he is in units along with career military people.
Now, if you are a career military person, you know what the pay scale
is. You have accepted the pay scale. Your family is probably getting
some benefits that the civil servant family is not getting. There are a
number of ways in which a career person has adapted to a situation that
they voluntarily went into. But the Reservist, who happened to have
been a civil service employee for the Federal Government, has to hear
that he would undercut morale if the government paid him at the same
rate that they were always paying him.
About 200 private sector employers, however, and 50 State and local
governments make up the difference in pay for their worker. Listen
carefully: The Federal Government, the men and women in charge of the
blunder in Iraq, who created a situation requiring all these Reservists
to go, they are doing less than 200 private sector employers, 50 State
and local governments, which now make up the difference in pay for
their workers when the workers are forced to serve as Reservists.
This is outrageous. It falls right at the doorstep of us Members of
Congress and Members of the other body. About 65,000 Reservists are
employed by Federal agencies. Mr. Speaker, 65,000 is a large number
that we are depriving of income, we are depriving those working
families of their income at a certain level, forcing them to accept the
pay of the military service that they are in. Sixty-five thousand
Reservists are employed by Federal agencies making the government the
single largest employer of Reservists. An additional 48,000 Federal
technicians are required, they do not have a choice, to be members of
the Guard as a condition of employment.
So we have a huge contingent of citizens, who happen to be Federal
employees, who are treated like dirt. Our government, our Federal
Government treats this huge number of people and their families like
dirt. Working families should not have to bear these kind of burdens.
This is a legislative atrocity.
Madam Speaker, I submit this article in its entirety into the record.
It is entitled ``Pay Gap Remedy for Military Reserve Appears Doomed,''
in the Washington Post, Monday, September 29th.
[From the Washington Post, Sept. 29, 2003]
Pay-Gap Remedy for Military Reserves Appears Doomed
(By Stephen Barr)
A proposal to close any pay gap faced by civil service
employees who are called to active duty in the military
reserves will not be considered by House and Senate
negotiators working on the fiscal 2004 defense authorization
bill, according to congressional aides.
Most lawmakers feel that the issue was evaluated by the
House Armed Services Committee during its deliberations and
is now closed, the aides said.
The proposal, pushed by a group of House Democrats, ran
into opposition because of its cost, as well as concern that
it might cause morale problems among regular military troops.
In May, the House Government Reform Committee approved an
amendment sponsored by Reps. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) and Chris
Bell (D-Tex.) aimed at requiring federal agencies to make up
the difference between civil service and military pay for
those on military duty. The provision was one of several
civil service changes proposed for the Defense Department and
forwarded to the Armed Services Committee.
But the provision was dropped when the Armed Services panel
put together the House version of the defense authorization
bill, which sets out guidelines for weapons and equipment
purchases, military benefits and troop strength.
The Lantos-Bell amendment stalled because of its cost--$160
million over five years, including $75 million in fiscal
2004--and because it could have triggered jurisdictional
questions that would have given the Government Reform
Committee a voice in shaping the defense bill, a
congressional aide said.
More important, however, were objections from the Defense
Department, which argued that making up differences in pay
for civil service employees would undercut military morale.
``You have two sergeants, one a career military and one a
reservist, doing the same job. And essentially the government
is paying the civilian employee more for that service than
the career military guy--that is the heart of the Defense
Department objection,'' the congressional aide said.
A Pentagon spokeswoman said there would be no comment on
the issue.
Supporters of the Lantos-Bell effort argue that National
Guard and reserve families are increasingly at risk of
financial hardship because reservists are being called up
more frequently since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The Army recently issued a policy requiring Guard and reserve
troops to serve 12-month tours in Iraq, meaning that most
Army reservists will be mobilized for more than a year.
About 200 private-sector employers and 50 state and local
governments make up the difference in pay for their workers
and the federal government should serve as an example of the
importance of assisting reservists, an aide to Lantos said.
But other congressional aides said the issue needs more
study. It might be more appropriate to use pay supplements to
offset income loss for specific occupations or individuals
rather than to take a blanket approach, they said.
[[Page H9016]]
Recent studies indicate that between 30 percent and 40
percent of activated reservists face a loss of income during
mobilization.
About 65,000 reservists are employed by federal agencies,
making the government the single-largest employer of
reservists. An additional 48,000 federal technicians are
required to be members of the Guard as a condition of
employment.
The Office of Personnel Management has called on federal
agencies to shoulder the cost of health insurance premiums
for employees called to active duty. At last count, about 80
out of more than 100 federal agencies had agreed to pick up
the premiums.
Madam Speaker, just treatment for working families left behind ought
to be a major goal of a government that has asked people to go and
fight in Afghanistan or in Iraq. Just treatment for working families
left behind. What is involved in just treatment? I serve as the ranking
Democrat on the Subcommittee on Workforce Protections of the Committee
on Education and the Workforce. And I am on that committee which has
jurisdiction over the minimum wage, over the Wage and Hour Act, and
other safety programs related to persons in the workforce. We have had
constant harassment since the Republican majority took control of the
Congress on all of these fronts.
{time} 2200
On the minimum wage, we are still at $5.15 an hour. In the last 3
years, the Republican majority has refused to allow us to bring a bill
to the floor to increase the minimum wage. That is what we think of
working families that we send off to war in times of war. They go. They
die. They fight. They get wounded. They are the backbone of the
security for America. But we do not want to increase the minimum wage
beyond $5.15 an hour. We have had constant harassment on overtime pay
and recently that was sort of intensified. But they do not want to pay
people cash for overtime. They want changes in law, so that employers
can pay you comp time if they so choose. It is not your choice. It is
their choice. Comp time, taking the cash out of your pay check and food
off your table, but offering you comp time at some future date they
choose.
They pushed that very hard. And even now, although we stopped it in
the Congress by executive fiat, the law is being changed to eliminate
certain categories of people as being eligible for overtime.
A jobs program is not in sight. Unemployment goes galloping on, and
we do not have a jobs program.
Health care, the papers all reported yesterday or today that the
number of people who are uninsured in America has jumped dramatically,
gone up. Those are working families that are uninsured.
Poverty, three or four days ago, it was reported that poverty has
greatly increased. These are the families from which these soldiers
come. These are the families that supply the troops out there that we
say we care about.
Madam Speaker, at this time I would be glad to yield to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Strickland).
Mr. STRICKLAND. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from New York for
yielding to me.
I noted earlier that many of our colleagues had gone to Iraq over the
weekend, and they came back and described their experiences. I went to
southeastern Ohio over the weekend, and I talked to people in Shady
Side, Ohio and in Bel Air, Ohio, and Youngstown, Ohio, and I heard
about infrastructure needs in Ohio. I heard about schools that need to
be built. I heard about water and sewer systems that small communities
simply cannot afford to pay for. And I talked with teachers and
principals, talked with about three or four high school classes over
this last 4 or 5 days while I was in Ohio.
We are a compassionate people, I would say to my friend from New
York. We are compassionate. We care about other people, but we also
care about the people that we are charged to represent. And in my
district, I have got so many needs.
I found out this past weekend that in one of my communities there is
the great danger that we are going to lose an additional 275 good-
paying jobs, union jobs, steelworker jobs. This really concerns me. I
think there is a bleeding of jobs in this country.
I looked at the headlines in the Columbus, Ohio Dispatch this
morning. Iraq Battle Last 8 Hours and then One in Six Uninsured, this
U.S. report says. Unemployment is skyrocketing in my district and
throughout Ohio. More and more of our constituents are without health
insurance. Our schools are being inadequately funded.
I toured a school in my district, I would say to my friend from New
York, not long ago; and after that tour was completed, one of the
parents on that tour came to me and he said, Congressman, I have two
children who attend this school. I had no idea it was in this
condition. He said, I am a building inspector, and if I were inspecting
any other commercial building that had the problems this school has, I
would close it immediately. He said, I saw at least 100 safety
violations in this school. And he said, there are violations that
cannot be easily fixed because this school has been added on to. It has
been patched together over multiple years.
Why is it that we seem so willing to accept the fact that our kids
can go to dilapidated schools, our people can be without health
insurance, our roads can be unbuilt, our veterans can be shortchanged
in the health care we provide to them, and yet we seem so willing,
almost casual in talking about billions of dollars for the rebuilding
of Iraq?
I might say to my friend from New York, it is not the rebuilding of
Iraq. It is the building of Iraq. The President said when he addressed
the United Nations that he intends to build 1,000 new schools in Iraq.
We did not destroy 1,000 schools in this war. They want to build two
400-bed hospitals in Iraq. We did not destroy hospitals during this
war. Talk about nation building. This President, during the campaign,
criticized efforts to nation-build. And as I said earlier when I
started my comments, we are a compassionate Nation. We care about the
needs that exist in other countries. We care about the people in Iraq,
but we are charged primarily to represent our constituents right here
at home.
I want to state, I do not know if many of my colleagues or the
President understand what life is like in southern and southeastern
Ohio. It is an Appalachian district. Unemployment in one of my counties
is 13.5 percent. People want to work. They are good people. They want
to care for their families. They care about their kids as much as any
Member in this Chamber cares about his or her children. They want them
to get a high-quality education as much as any person in this Chamber
wants their children to get a high-quality education.
If I can just take a moment before I yield back to talk about
veterans. I am on the Committee on Veterans' Affairs. I keep reminding
us in this Chamber that we are underfunding the VA health care system
by at least $1.8 billion. Think about that. We have got veterans who
are going without health care, who are being denied the ability to
enroll in VA health care, who are going to be asked by this
administration to pay more copayments for prescription drugs. The
President wants to impose a $250 enrollment fee on Priority 7 veterans.
And Priority 8 veterans are being told they cannot even enroll in the
VA system. They can make as little as $24,000 and be a Priority 8
veteran, and yet we are just, it seems, almost casually talking about
spending $21 billion to build schools and roads and bridges and clinics
and hospitals in Iraq. I just do not understand what is wrong with this
government. I certainly do not understand what is wrong with this
President and this administration.
We have got a war going on. We are shortchanging our national needs.
We are not caring for our soldiers. We have got about 40,000 soldiers
in Iraq tonight that have cheap vests that are not capable of stopping
bullets. The more expensive protective vests, my understanding is, cost
$571 on average. I got a letter from a young soldier, a West Point
graduate. He said, Congressman, they are issuing two kind of vests over
here. One is capable of stopping a bullet, and the other only stops
shrapnel. My men are asking me why they have the cheap vests.
I wonder how many of our soldiers may have been wounded or killed
wearing a cheap vest, inadequate protective body armor. And the British
Broadcasting System has reported that we have made a deal with some of
these other countries, I think Poland and some other countries, that if
they will
[[Page H9017]]
contribute soldiers, we will provide them with these higher-cost vests.
I want to make doggone sure that no foreign troops get these better
vests before every single American soldier that is in Iraq has access
to one of these protective garments.
I thank my friend for allowing me to express my opinion on this
subject, and I yield back to him and thank him for his graciousness
this evening.
Mr. OWENS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman and I would like to
add to that discussion on veterans.
Most of us in the House of Representatives were shocked 3 weeks ago
to discover that there was a provision where veterans who go to the
hospital must pay for their food, their meals. And we immediately
passed legislation to end that. I do not know whether it has been
signed by the President yet or not. It is just one more administrative
atrocity. I use the word atrocity, and I think it is appropriate. It is
an atrocity to have veterans treated as they are. Some of my friends
earlier are talking about ``you have to go to Iraq to know exactly what
is happening.''
I suggest to those who want to know what is happening, go to Walter
Reed Hospital and visit the wounded. The wounded also suffer. And in
many cases those are wounded one week, and in a few weeks are dead. You
can get a good example of what is going on if you look at veterans who,
the minute they are off the roster of the Army, they will get no pay.
They will be put on disability. Some have totally lost everything in
terms of limbs or the capacity to work. They were put on disability,
which is a far cry from the salary they earned as a soldier.
So my simple plea is that working families who fight for the security
and peace abroad deserve survivable and living wages and a reasonable
chance to pursue happiness here at home. We are investing tremendous
amounts of money in the rebuilding of Iraq in the Armed Forces, and we
are neglecting the needs of our own people in catastrophic proportions.
On March 3, I summarized my concern with the waste of American cash
in a rap poem which I call Stop The War--We Need The Cash.
Stop the war, we need the cash.
Tank battles escalate into nuclear ash.
Stop the war.
We need the cash.
Give Medicaid families some of Rumsfeld's stash.
Throw the empty body bags in to the trash.
Stop the war.
Welfare mothers rush to cry.
Soldiers from the ranks of the poor will be the first to die.
Stop the war.
Vietnam had profound lessons to teach.
Empires lose when they overreach.
Stop the war.
One of the greatest monuments related to heroes is the Vietnam War
Memorial monument here in Washington. That monument makes a statement
that has never been made by any other military monument in the history
in the world. Instead of unknown soldiers in a tomb, they have put the
names of every soldier who died in Vietnam on the wall for you to see.
They have given those individuals a person. They are there. And you
must confront the fact that wars take individual humans in large
numbers, in the case of Vietnam, 58,000, but regardless of numbers, the
individualization of a process, the Vietnam Memorial Wall does that.
The poor are up there. The youngsters who came from welfare families.
The numerous youngsters who came out of the big cities because when the
draft was on, the largest proportion of young men who went to Vietnam
came out of our big city slums. We must stop and think for a moment
about the way those soldiers and everybody who was enlisted are treated
in terms of the technicalities and administrative requirements of the
veterans administration.
They have categories, Category 7, 8, people who served in combat
under great risk are given preference. They are different from others.
But I say that anybody who has served in the military for the benefit
of his country deserves equal treatment, because once you put the
uniform on and you take the oath, your life belongs to the military, to
the Nation. And where you go and what you do is determined by forces
that you have no control over.
{time} 2215
If you were needed behind the lines to catalog munitions or run a
computer, then you were assigned there because you were needed there.
The fact that you were not put on the front line does not make you any
less than the people who were put on the front lines, because you could
not make that decision.
So everybody who put a uniform on and took the oath should be treated
as a hero. They are a small percentage of the rest of us. Even in World
War II when such large numbers went to war, the percentage of those who
actually went to war was still a small percentage of the overall
population. They deserve to be treated as heroes. Those who went to
Vietnam deserve to be treated as heroes, regardless of how many hours
they spent in combat under fire. They were all heroes. They come from
working families, as I said before, most of them; and this
classification scheme, these technicalities about how much copayment
you have to pay if you are a Category 8 versus Category 7, whether you
are eligible at all is part of the insult that working families have
been forced to endure; and we should fight against it.
Righteous indignation is in order. The treatment of working families
in America is an outrageous abomination and we should fight. We fight
on the front lines, and we die on the front lines. We should fight our
government.
We should fight Alan Greenspan. Alan Greenspan is against the minimum
wage law. Alan Greenspan has been the economic guru of Democrats and
Republicans for a long time. Did you know that Alan Greenspan thinks
that we should not even have a minimum wage law? Part of the reason we
cannot get a minimum wage law to the floor is we have the guru of our
economic system saying we do not need a minimum wage law. This is
outrageous.
Alan Greenspan happens to be a disciple of Ayn Rand, a woman who was
a great individualist, who felt that government was not needed, group
action was not needed except in times of war or when you need the
police. So when her physical body was threatened, she believed in the
group process, we should have police, we should have an Army. Any other
time, individuals should be totally left alone; and if they cannot make
it, let them die. So that man is a disciple of Ayn Rand, Alan
Greenspan. He is one of the reasons we cannot move. Philosophically,
there are too many people in Washington who agree that minimum wage
laws are not important.
Examine the tax cuts of that situation in terms of what happened at
the New York Stock Exchange. The New York Stock Exchange has a big
brouhaha because the man who headed the stock exchange, Dick Grasso,
had a severance package of $140 million and he wanted another 48; and
they made a big brouhaha, and headlines were formed about how dare he
ask for another $48 million. Well, what about the first $140 million?
These astronomical amounts of money are being tossed around by the
people who belong to the kleptocracy. At the time I call them
kleptocracy, call them oligarchy, whatever you want to call them. They
are the ones who want a tax cut. They do not need a tax cut. It is
obscene the kinds of figures that we have heard that corporations throw
around among themselves, Enron, WorldCom. The head of WorldCom, one of
the directors got a $400 million loan from the company, $400 million.
Can you imagine a loan of $400 million? Surely if you get a $400
million loan, it is understood by those who loan it to you that you are
never going to pay it back.
But this goes on, and these are the people who will show great
indignation if a welfare mother gets extra food stamps. This is the
kind of mental attitude that we have allowed to develop.
The workers who are on the front lines in Iraq, Afghanistan and
everywhere else have to know they have to come forward and fight, fight
this kind of oppression.
On Wednesday, July 16, as a result of my anger following the attempt
to stop the payment of overtime to workers, I wrote the following and
enter it into the Congressional Record:
``Mr. Speaker, the July 10th vote to allow the expenditure of funds
to implement radical changes in the overtime provisions of the Wage and
Hour Act was an outrageous and devastating attack on working families.
[[Page H9018]]
Compounding the horror of this action is the recent announcement that
our present complement of soldiers in Iraq, 90 percent of whom come
from working families, will be forced into combat overtime for the
indefinite future.''
At the same time we were fighting overtime payment for workers here,
we were announcing, the President was announcing, Rumsfeld was
announcing that they would be extending the time of the soldiers
indefinitely.
``Not even the 1-year rotation rule of Vietnam will be applied to
relieve their long ordeal under extreme heat and guerilla warfare
duress. Overtime in the dangerous defense of the Nation is being
mandated without controls while at the same time overtime wages to feed
working families is being subjected to new schemes to reduce take-home
pay. This is an unacceptable continuation of the gross exploitation and
oppression of working families by the Republican scrooges who presently
dominate the Congress and the White House.''
I summarize my statement in a rap poem, which is called ``Let the
Rich Go First.''
Working Families
Keep your soldiers at home,
For overtime in Iraq
No cash
No comp time
Not even gratitude,
Republicans intrude
To exempt all heroes,
No combat rotation
Life on definite probation
Scrooges running the Nation.
To the front lines
Let the rich go first--
For blood they got a thirst,
Let the superstars drink it
In the glorious trenches;
Leave the disadvantaged on the benches.
Working Families
Let the rich go first:
The battlegrounds they always choose
Their estates have the most to lose;
Send highest IQs to
Take positions at the front,
Let them perform their best
High-tech warfare stunt;
Working Families
Keep your malnourished sons home--
Harvard Yale kids should roam
The world with guns and tanks,
Reserve gold medals
For the loyal Ivy League ranks.
O say can you see
Millionaire graduates
Dying for you and me?
Welfare Moms
Have a message for the masters:
Tell Uncle Sam
His TANF pennies he can keep
For food stamps we refuse to leap
Through your hoops like beasts;
Promise to leave our soldiers alone
And we'll find our own feasts.
To Uncle Sam we offer a bargain--
Don't throw us dirty crumbs
Don't treat us like bums
And then demand
The full measure of devotion;
Our minds are now in motion
Class warfare
Is not such a bad notion;
Your swindle will not last
Recruiters we won't let pass,
Finally, we opened our eyes--
Each family is a private enterprise.
Each child a precious prize;
We got American property rights,
Before our children die in war
This time we'll choose the fights.
Let the rich go first:
They worry about
The overtime we abuse;
The battlefields they always choose
Their estates have the most to lose.
Let the rich go first!
I have stated a divine right of parents that nobody's ever bothered
to talk about. We assume that the government, like the kings and the
queens of old, have the right to conscript in a time of war and take
their sons and daughters. Why do we not have a movement which
challenges that? Governments that do not bother to provide food,
clothing and shelter for poor youngsters have no right to later on
claim their lives in wars that they had no decision-making power to
start or stop.
It comes down to a class warfare. There is class warfare in America.
The rich have declared war. The powerful have declared war on the poor.
The poor do not fight back. They do not know that they are being
constantly abused. It is time we took a hard look at how much they are
abused in times of war. Like the blunder in Iraq, it is a life and
death matter. They are going to die if they do not fight back.
America is a promised land, and America's promised land is being
grossly mismanaged. We are as a promised land as man can ever get,
human kind will ever get. We have the greatest potential of anything
that ever existed on the face of the Earth. While managing a society
that provides justice for all provides the right to pursue happiness
and the opportunity to pursue happiness for all. That is possible in
America, but America's promise is being grossly mismanaged by this
Republican administration. The war in Iraq is the most dangerous
mismanagement this country has ever experienced.
Preoccupation with $87 billion for the war dooms any realistic effort
to revive the economy. There are alternatives, but this mismanagement
team will never consider those alternatives.
There was a bill offered by a friend of mine, the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio), which says if we are going to spend 20-some
billion dollars in Iraq to rebuild Iraq, then let us spend an equal
amount in the cities and the States to improve our economy. That is a
good idea. There are other good ideas along those lines that have been
offered.
I think several months ago I offered a bill called the Domestic
Budget Protection Act, H.R. 1804. The essence of the Domestic Budget
Protection Act is we should have a situation where the domestic budget,
the budget for education, for highways and schools, and the budget for
health care is not in the same category with the budget for the war.
Let the war pay for itself in some other way, and H.R. 1804 says that
we should pay for it the way we paid for part of the Vietnam War and
part of the Korean War and to some extent World War II. We placed a tax
on the profits of corporations. Let a tax be placed on the profits of
corporations to pay for the war so that no money is taken out of the
other revenue that comes in and there is no threat to the domestic
budget from the war budget. That is not a radical idea. We have done it
before. Let us consider it now and do it now.
I also had another act which was a twin for that, and this is called
the Emergency Targeted Revenue Sharing Act of 2003, H.R. 2335, and that
is a simple act which says that we should spend the same amount of
money in the States and the cities on job creation programs, education,
health care, et cetera, that we spend in Iraq. The gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) says $20 billion, I said $9 billion was at the
time the amount we were proposing for the war in Iraq.
The principle is pretty clear, as my colleague from Ohio stated. We
are suffering greatly in our cities and our towns. Our schools are
suffering. People are being laid off. Terrible things are happening in
terms of taxes being raised on ordinary local people. At the same time,
the Federal Government is cutting income tax for the richest people,
for the Dick Grassos who earn $140 million and want another $40
million. They are getting tax cuts for the WorldCom president who can
borrow $400 million. He is getting a tax cut. For all the Enron
criminals who squandered large amounts of money, they are getting tax
cuts. But for those who are out there searching for jobs, they are
sinking in a quagmire of poverty. The report that came out a few days
ago said poverty is increasing. The number of people who are uninsured
is increasing. It is not surprising, they are both very much related.
We want to support the troops. The first way we can support them is
to support their families. We should manage the war and the economy
better, manage the war and the economy better.
The team now in charge is not capable of managing better. I have here
an advertisement that appeared in the New York Times last Friday. It is
a big, full page advertisement that reads: ``Donald Rumsfeld betrayed
my son and our Nation; it is time for him to go.'' It is written by a
person who has three sons in the military, three sons in the military.
Two of them are in Iraq.
{time} 2230
His name is Larry Syverson of Richmond, Virginia. I am going to read
it all and submit it for the Record.
``I am a patriotic American with three sons in the military, two
serving in Iraq. Brandon is a master gunner near Tikrit. Bryce is a
gunner stationed in Baghdad. I'm proud of their service, but I'm angry
with those who have led us into what can only be called a quagmire.
``Donald Rumsfeld had day-to-day authority for planning the war and
its
[[Page H9019]]
aftermath. He was the chief architect, and it is his house of cards
that is tumbling today. Months after the President declared `mission
accomplished,' Americans are being killed almost daily. On April 13,
Rumsfeld said: `Every hour that goes by, it's getting better and more
peaceful and more orderly in Iraq.'
``We know that is not true. Rumsfeld's bad planning has left our
troops poorly equipped and vulnerable in an increasingly hostile
environment, and Americans are being asked for an additional $87
billion for Iraq. We now know that the President and those who serve
him misled us about weapons of mass destruction, about Saddam's
supposed nuclear program, about a link between Saddam and September 11.
``I'm in awe at the courage of my sons and the honorable service they
give, but the leaders they serve have not acted honorably. They have
failed my sons. They have failed all of us. At the very least,
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld must go.''
Now this is an ad that appeared in The New York Times and is paid for
by MoveOn.org that says we can win without war.
We have a situation where very high-powered leaders with very high-
powered advice, almost unlimited funds to pay for the personnel to do
the planning, have placed us in a situation which is a quagmire. There
is an overwhelming blunder that has taken place in Iraq. Did we not
know about the dilemma of Robert McNamara in Vietnam? Were the people
who did this not able to read? Did they not see the clippings and the
media representations about the war in Chechnya, the Russians trying to
contain a very small population, compared to the 24 million population
of Iraq? Did we not see that and understand what that was all about?
Did we not understand what happened to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan?
Did we think the Soviet Union was driven out of Afghanistan because we
supplied the Taliban, the al Qaeda at that time, the Mujahadeen? We
supplied them with modern weapons. We supplied them with training. We
spent billions of dollars that were never recorded in Afghanistan to
defeat the Soviets.
I invite anybody who would like to hear more about that to read a
book called Charlie Wilson's War. Charlie Wilson's War has gotten very
little publicity in terms of what it deserves. Charlie Wilson's War is
a story of a Congressman named Charlie Wilson from Texas. He is still
alive. He was an amazing character and should be given some kind of
medal for being the Member of Congress who controlled and manipulated
billions and billions of dollars. He has the record for what he
controlled and manipulated, using the CIA and other mechanisms to get
money into Pakistan to be used against the Russians in the war in
Afghanistan.
Eventually, the modernizing of the Mujahadeen and the Taliban,
including Osama bin Laden, who was there at the time, the modernization
of that group led them to the point where they were able to drive the
Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. Stinger missiles were supplied in
tremendous numbers through the efforts of Charlie Wilson. It is
something everyone should read. But did Rumsfeld not read it?
Westmoreland, in Vietnam, kept offering optimistic reports and
blowing up the body bag numbers for the enemy. Did he not read about
that? Later, we found it was not true. The number of enemy that General
Westmoreland claimed were being killed in Vietnam was far less than
were being killed. Therefore, it threw off all our calculations, and
the North Vietnamese were later to mount a tremendous counterattack,
and we had to scramble to get out of Saigon. Did no one read that?
Does anybody remember the Tet offensive, the Tet offensive in Saigon?
At a time when President Johnson said we were winning the war, the
Vietnamese guerrillas, with the help of North Vietnam, launched a
massive weekend guerilla attack which shattered once and for all any
hope that we could ever win the war in Vietnam. It was called the Tet
offensive. In the environment of Iraq it will be easy to mount a Tet
Offensive type operation. They have already started down that road.
The guerilla attacks are getting more intense in Iraq. There was an
8-hour firefight yesterday, an 8-hour firefight with the guerrillas
yesterday. This is not a hit-and-run suicide bomber situation. They are
moving into other levels.
Now, should we cut and run? That is not my proposal. I propose that
we immediately move as rapidly as possible to create a situation which
will head off the support for these guerrillas. The way to do that is
to be able to get help from other nations. Let it be known clearly that
we are not oppressors, we are not occupiers, we do not intend to stay
there. We need to get help from other nations, move rapidly to
establish a constitution for Iraq, and while we are doing that, send in
more troops.
We cannot play games the way we are playing now, pretending we do not
need more troops. The way to stop the guerrillas is to have more
troops. The way to stop the sabotage of the oil wells, the way to stop
the sabotage of the water systems, the way to stop the sabotage of the
electricity systems is to have more troops to guard them. You cannot
escape the need for more troops on a short-term basis.
Naturally, Mr. Rumsfeld does not want to be in a position of exposing
that his calculations were all wrong. God forbid he should become a
person who has to call for a draft. But he puts our soldiers in harm's
way by playing such games, by not agreeing with the generals who are
afraid to say so in public but they tell us behind the scenes they need
more troops. We need more American troops while we are waiting for
those others to come from other nations, who might show up and they
might not.
We must understand the degree of the mismanagement. Robert McNamara
was a genius, but he got caught up in a situation in Vietnam which
drove him to ignore all of his common sense and all of his genius.
Lyndon Johnson was a political genius, but ego and the belief that
America must never allow itself to be defeated led to a quagmire in
Vietnam. Fifty-eight thousand died in Vietnam.
The numbers are much smaller in Iraq, but every life is sacred. And
if we do not move now in a decisive way, the numbers will go up, and
every soldier killed will have died in vain. I do not think this
blunder in Iraq is worth a single American life, and since we are
there, we could not avoid being there, let us try to limit the number
of lives that are being lost.
So I say to the working families of America and the people who care
about all of Americans, who care about our troops who are out there
suffering, really care about the troops and not just waving flags but
refuse to provide the kind of support the troops need, as veterans, as
soldiers out there who need flack jackets at work, and there are a
number of things going on which are detrimental to our troops in the
field and certainly affect their morale when they look back home and
see their families being treated like dirt, I say to all those people
who are watching this to not give up.
Now is the time for us to come forward and place ourselves on the
front lines for the defense of America. The greatest Americans are the
Americans who want peace. The greatest Americans are the Americans who
will tell the truth and who will fight the myths that are endangering
our security. It is a myth that Iraq is a center for fighting
terrorism. That is a myth. We have said it is a center, but it is only
a quagmire, a trap, an ambush. The real center is still wherever Osama
bin Laden and his network is located, and that network is still our
greatest threat in terms of our security. That is a myth. We should
fight that myth.
We should fight the myth that the United Nations has nothing to
offer; that France, with its French fries and American fries, does not
deserve to be a decisionmaker in this situation; that Russia only wants
to get involved because it wants to get the money back for its
contracts; that Iraq cannot pay for its own reconstruction. That is the
biggest myth. Iraq has oil fields beneath the surface that can pay for
any reconstruction they need to take. The problem is that many of the
people involved in this war are trying to secure the oil of Iraq for
the oil barons and the companies that already are involved. They want
theirs off the top. They do not want an agreement which says Iraq
should pay its own way because they have plans to take their
commissions off the top.
[[Page H9020]]
There was a time when the Middle East oil flowed out of the Middle
East and each country only got 12 cents on the barrel. The rest of it
flowed to Great Britain or France or some other country, the dollars.
They want to go back to that. They do not want to admit that Iraq can
pay for its own reconstruction. We can set up a situation where they
wait maybe 10 years, 20 years. Who cares? Charge them low interest.
They can pay for their own reconstruction.
We need to come forward and be as fervent, as dedicated as the people
who support Donald Rumsfeld. They have fervor. They are bold. But they
are wrong.
We need to be fanatics for peace.
We are citizens who ought to volunteer to do our part.
Never mind looking for a military Purple Heart.
We are fanatics for peace.
Our holy assault must never cease.
The Constitution light still shines.
We should launch spit into the fascist face.
Our maneuvers will launch the human race.
Pledge allegiance to the human race.
Pledge allegiance to the civilization that our children
deserve.
This is the cause we swear to serve.
Victory without blood in Ghandi's name.
Celebrate Mandela's fame.
The spirit of Martin King again will reign.
Resist a government that has now gone insane.
Commanders of abuses must face the Nuremberg nooses.
We are fanatics for peace.
Run and broadcast the brave news.
Divine mobilization is what working families should choose.
Surrender we unconditionally refuse.
Our vision will not decrease.
Our passion will never cease.
We are fanatics for peace.
We are the greatest Americans.
We want peace.
Madam Speaker, the article I referred to earlier is as follows:
I'm a patriotic American with three sons in the military,
two serving in Iraq. Branden is a master gunner near Tikrit.
Bryce is a gunner stationed in Baghdad. I'm proud of their
service. But I'm angry with those who have led us into what
can only be called a quagmire.
Donald Rumsfeld had day-to-day authority for planning for
the war and its aftermath. He was the chief architect and it
is his house of cards that is tumbling today. Months after
the President declared, ``mission accomplished,'' Americans
are being killed almost daily. On April 13, Rumsfeld said:
``Every hour that goes by, it's getting better, and more
peaceful and more orderly in [Iraq].'' We know that is not
true. Rumsfeld's bad planning has left our troops poorly
equipped and vulnerable in an increasingly hostile
environment. And Americans are being asked for an additional
$87 billion for Iraq.
We now know that the President and those who serve him
mislead us about weapons of mass destruction, about Saddam's
supposed nuclear program, about a link between Saddam and
September 11. I'm in awe at the courage of my sons and the
honorable service they give. But the leaders they serve have
not acted honorably. They have failed my sons. They have
failed all of us. At the very least, Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld must go.
____________________