[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 116 (Thursday, September 15, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H8022-H8031]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    ESTABLISHING THE SELECT BIPARTISAN COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE 
           PREPARATION FOR AND RESPONSE TO HURRICANE KATRINA

  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 439, I call 
up the resolution (H. Res. 437) to establish the Select Bipartisan 
Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane 
Katrina, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

                              H. Res. 437

       Resolved,

     SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT.

       There is hereby established the Select Bipartisan Committee 
     to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane 
     Katrina (hereinafter referred to as the ``select 
     committee'').

     SEC. 2. COMPOSITION.

       (a) The select committee shall be composed of 20 members 
     appointed by the Speaker, of whom 9 shall be appointed after 
     consultation with the Minority Leader. The Speaker shall 
     designate one Member as chairman.
       (b)(1) The Speaker and the Minority Leader shall be ex 
     officio members of the select committee but shall have no 
     vote in the select committee and may not be counted for 
     purposes of determining a quorum.
       (2) The Speaker and the Minority Leader each may designate 
     a leadership staff member to assist in their capacity as ex 
     officio members, with the same access to select committee 
     meetings, hearings, briefings, and materials as employees of 
     the select committee and subject to the same security 
     clearance and confidentiality requirements as staff of the 
     select committee.

     SEC. 3. INVESTIGATION AND REPORT.

       The select committee is authorized and directed to conduct 
     a full and complete investigation and study and to report its 
     findings to the House not later than February 15, 2006, 
     regarding--
       (1) the development, coordination, and execution by local, 
     State, and Federal authorities of emergency response plans 
     and other activities in preparation for Hurricane Katrina; 
     and
       (2) the local, State, and Federal government response to 
     Hurricane Katrina.

     SEC. 4. PROCEDURE.

       Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, 
     including the items referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2), 
     shall apply to the select committee:
       (1) Clause 2(j)(1) of rule XI (guaranteeing the minority 
     additional witnesses).
       (2) Clause 2(m)(3) of rule XI (providing for the authority 
     to subpoena witnesses and documents).

     SEC. 5. JOINT OPERATIONS.

       The chairman of the select committee, in conducting the 
     investigation and study described in section 3, shall consult 
     with the chairman of a Senate committee conducting a parallel 
     investigation and study regarding meeting jointly to receive 
     testimony, the scheduling of hearings or issuance of 
     subpoenas, and joint staff interviews of key witnesses.

     SEC. 6. STAFF; FUNDING.

       (a)(1) To the greatest extent practicable, the select 
     committee shall utilize the services of staff of employing 
     entities of the House. At the request of the chairman in 
     consultation with the ranking minority member, staff of 
     employing entities of the House or a joint committee may be 
     detailed to the select committee to carry out this resolution 
     and shall be deemed to be staff of the select committee.
       (2) The chairman, upon consultation with the ranking 
     minority member, may employ and fix the compensation of such 
     staff as the chairman considers necessary to carry out this 
     resolution.
       (b) There shall be paid out of the applicable accounts of 
     the House $500,000 for the expenses of the select committee. 
     Such payments shall be made on vouchers signed by the 
     chairman and approved in the manner directed by the Committee 
     on House Administration. Amounts made available under this 
     subsection shall be expended in accordance with regulations 
     prescribed by the Committee on House Administration.

     SEC. 7. DISSOLUTION AND DISPOSITION OF RECORDS.

       (a) The select committee shall cease to exist 30 days after 
     filing the report required under section 3.
       (b) Upon dissolution of the select committee, the records 
     of the select committee shall become the records of any 
     committee designated by the Speaker.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 439, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and the gentlewoman from New 
York (Ms. Slaughter) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier).


                             General Leave

  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their 
remarks on H. Res. 437.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, this debate that we are beginning here is about a very 
clear choice that is before us. Will we take the responsibility 
delegated to us as Members of the People's House by the framers of our 
Constitution to ask the hard questions, admit our mistakes and improve 
our Nation's government for the benefit of all? Or will we rely on 
proxies to do our work for us because we have judged ourselves 
incapable of carrying out our constitutional duty to ensure that we are 
providing for the general welfare, which is what the preamble of the 
Constitution clearly states we have a responsibility to do.
  I, for one, believe as James Madison, the father of our Constitution, 
did, that the Constitution vests this responsibility with us. I am 
ready to accept the challenge as a Member of the House of 
Representatives. I believe that we have already started this work.
  Last night, in the Committee on Rules, many of my Democratic 
colleagues asked excellent questions. The gentlewoman from New York 
(Ms. Slaughter), my friend from Rochester, asked very thoughtful and 
important questions that need to be raised. I noted that the 
gentlewoman from Sacramento, California (Ms. Matsui) similarly asked 
some very, very good questions that should be posed to those dealing 
with the preparation for and the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
  Just yesterday the governor of my State, Pete Wilson, and I should 
say the former governor of my State, Pete Wilson, testified. I do know 
very well that we have a new governor. His name

[[Page H8023]]

is Arnold Schwarzenegger, I should say for the Record. But Pete Wilson 
testified before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs. It was a hearing that they held on recovering 
from Hurricane Katrina, and he did this to share his experience and 
very valuable lessons that he learned from dealing with many, many 
very, very difficult challenges, disasters that we faced in California, 
earthquakes, fire, mudslides, the devastation that we faced.
  I will tell Members that Pete Wilson handled every single one of 
those challenges in his 8 years as governor extraordinarily well, and 
we learned tremendously from the tragedies that we faced in those 
instances.

                              {time}  1315

  As he said, obviously while nowhere near the scale of Hurricane 
Katrina, and we all know that Hurricane Katrina has been described as 
the worst natural disaster to ever hit our country, some of the things 
that were faced in California, there were terrible California floods in 
January of 1997 that resulted in eight deaths, the evacuation of 
120,000 people, relocation of 55,000 people to 107 shelters, damage or 
destruction of 30,000 residences and 2,000 businesses, and total damage 
estimates at about $2 billion. That in 1997.
  I talked earlier today, during the rule considering the establishment 
of this committee, about the Northridge earthquake in 1994, and it 
resulted in 51 deaths and injured over 9,000 people, left 22,000 people 
homeless.
  The interesting thing, as we look at these figures, is we all know 
that they pale in comparison to the tragedy of Hurricane Katrina. But, 
Madam Speaker, I will tell the Members that these were learning 
experiences for us. One of the things that was most impressive to me 
and one of the things that we have already found here to be very 
beneficial was the fact that the private sector has stepped forward and 
is in many ways doing things the government cannot do. And I think it 
is often joked about the fact that the private sector is there, ready 
to meet a need, a need that the government in no way could meet.
  We know that for an emergency response like that we faced, clearly 
the government had to step in. When I say government, I am talking 
about the local government, the State government, and the Federal 
Government as well. The Federal Government, obviously, is not the 
first. It is really the last step. We know that State and local 
governments have the responsibility to make those recommendations to 
the Federal Government and then bring them in. We also know that at 
virtually all these levels of government, we have heard the leadership, 
from President Bush when it comes to the Federal Government, to 
Governor Blanco in Louisiana, state that things were not handled as 
well as they could have been; and both President Bush and Governor 
Blanco, Republican and Democrat, have taken responsibility for dealing 
with this situation.
  I mentioned the fact that we learned things, and I mentioned the 
private sector. And one example that I like to point to, and I have got 
this right here, is in the 1994 Northridge earthquake, we had the Santa 
Monica Freeway collapse over La Cienega Boulevard. The Santa Monica 
Freeway is the most traversed interstate in the country. A quarter of a 
million vehicles a day go on the Santa Monica Freeway right over the La 
Cienega off-ramp. And the earthquake took place in January of 1994, and 
I happened to be by there, and one of the police officers let me go up, 
and I actually took a chunk of the Santa Monica Freeway. This has been 
sitting in my living room out in California for a long period of time. 
Most people think it is a piece of the Berlin Wall, but it is actually 
from the Santa Monica Freeway. We can see the rebars here, and this is 
obviously the freeway itself. And when it collapsed, we saw Southern 
California, clearly the most populous spot in the Nation, come to a 
standstill because of the importance of Interstate 10, the Santa Monica 
Freeway there.
  Some projected that it would take as much as a year or 2 years to 
repair this freeway that had collapsed over La Cienega Boulevard. And 
Governor Wilson stepped up to the plate and did everything that he 
could to provide incentives to ensure that it got completed. He wrote a 
piece on this the day before yesterday in The Wall Street Journal in 
which he referred to the fact that people said it would take a long 
period of time.
  They looked and established this contract with the Myers Company and 
they were told that they would have a $200,000 fine for every day 
beyond what they had contracted for if they did not complete it, but 
they got a $200,000 bonus, Madam Speaker, for every day that they got 
this completed earlier than had been projected.
  As I said, some predicted it would take a year or 2 years to complete 
this. Madam Speaker, in 66 days the Santa Monica Freeway reopened, 
working 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
  This is the kind of incentive that we need to put in place to ensure 
that they deal with this circumstance. And, ironically, Interstate 10 
is the exact same route that is going into New Orleans that collapsed 
following Hurricane Katrina and the breaking of the levees.
  So I think that we have the ability to respond, to deal with this, 
and the United States Congress is in a position to make sure that we 
look at encouraging the most creative ways to address this challenge, 
look in a bipartisan way at these problems.
  And we have set guidelines. We have got deadlines. But, obviously, if 
it is necessary, those can be moved if it is essential. But we have a 
desire to ensure that, as an institution, we come together as the 
elected representatives of the American people to do our job. And I am 
convinced that we are going to have the ability to do that, and we look 
forward to seeing Members of both political parties join this very 
important effort, and I am convinced that they will be able to look at 
all levels of government and the private sector and get to the bottom 
of that.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, high talk from the majority follows the abysmally low 
performance of the Federal organizations that they oversee and that our 
people trusted to protect them in their hour of need. And today we are 
told it is our constitutional duty to find out why the government was 
so unable to protect life here at home during and after Hurricane 
Katrina.
  I would like to remind our friends on the other side that one of our 
constitutional duties as representatives of the will of the people is 
actually to represent the will of the people of the United States. So 
let the record show that as of today, according to the Republican 
leadership, the will of the American people no longer matters.
  The fact that 76 percent of the citizens of our Nation want an 
independent commission to investigate the Katrina disaster does not 
mean a thing. The fact that over 60 percent of Republicans want an 
independent commission does not register with them either. Apparently, 
the people of the United States are to be patted on the head and told, 
Do not worry. We will find out what happened here.
  The fact that thousands of men, women, and children are dead; the 
fact that hundreds of thousands more have become evacuees in the 
richest country in the world shows that we do not have everything under 
control. The fact that we cut corners and underfunded those responsible 
for maintaining the levees that protected New Orleans by tens of 
millions of dollars only so that later thousands of lives would be 
needlessly lost, tens of billions of dollars would have to be spent 
cleaning up the mess left behind shows that we do not have anything 
under control. That is really a case of being penny wise and pound 
foolish.
  And now, to show how seriously it takes its constitutional 
responsibility to get the government back on track, to show that it is 
not interested solely in rhetoric but also in results, the majority has 
seen fit to create a partisan political body, which we all know will 
care more about the political survival of the leadership than the 
actual survival of the people.
  How do we know this? Because the committee put forth by the majority 
is intentionally designed to be partisan. It has a Republican majority. 
It includes subpoena power controlled by the majority. And the scope of 
the investigation will be the whim of the

[[Page H8024]]

leadership of the majority. The idea of having a truly bipartisan 
commission to investigate the tragedy was never seriously entertained. 
If it was, joint subpoena power would exist in this bill, as would 
joint control of the committee's operation, scope, and direction.
  Instead of this, platitudes promising cooperation and shared power 
have filled this hall, leaving no room for a resolution calling for 
either a truly bipartisan committee or, what would be infinitely 
better, the creation of an independent commission which will actually 
eliminate politics from what will otherwise be an incredibly 
politicized investigation.
  All of this is obvious to nearly every observer, and yet the 
leadership tells the Democrats if we are objecting to their Republican-
first agenda, we, the Members of the minority, are being partisan. 
Apparently, in the wake of disaster comes hypocrisy.
  Along with its assurances of a fair and honest investigation of the 
failures of the Federal response to Katrina, assurances which are the 
product of wishful thinking as opposed to a sincere review of recent 
history, the majority puts forth empty arguments in favor of this bill.
  We created the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA, so only we 
can investigate it, they argue. That means that this leadership also 
helped to create the systemic problems which caused DHS and FEMA to 
fail. What exactly is their incentive to publicize their lack of vision 
and errors in judgment?
  As the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) said earlier 
today, it would be like nominating Enron to investigate stock fraud 
because they helped to perfect it, and it would not make much sense.
  But the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) told us this morning 
that none of this matters. It would be absurd, he says, to think that 
any Member of this body would not want to get to the bottom of the 
failures. Madam Speaker, more absurd things happen in this House all 
the time. For example, some might say that appointing a man with 
absolutely no experience in emergency management to head the Federal 
Emergency Management Association was absurd, and yet nobody challenged 
that appointment until it was far too late.
  Madam Speaker, I do not mean to say that the chairman and his 
colleagues do not care about improving our national preparedness for a 
future emergency, because I know that they do; but the fact that 
political pressures have in the past and will again in the future 
distort and in some cases destroy investigations of government failings 
when the investigations are carried out by us, this is so obvious that 
it should be beyond question.
  The only real question left before us today is why does the majority 
find an independent commission to investigate the tragedy so 
objectionable? Would any of them like to claim here that the 9/11 
Commission was a mistake? They all voted for it. Should we reject the 
findings of that body? Should we here and now state that because it was 
not run by those managing the government on September 11, 2001, for 
that reason, what it discovered was illegitimate? Is there anyone here 
who would like to state for the record that the creation of the 9/11 
Commission was an abdication and denial of our constitutional 
responsibility as Members of the House of Representatives?
  Not one Member of this body would make such a claim, and yet the 
majority makes this claim about the creation of a similar body to 
investigate what happened on the gulf coast.
  There is only one explanation for it. Dare I say this absurd stance 
is control. The majority wants to keep the investigation under its 
control so it can make sure that the answers that the committee 
produces toe the party line. Thinking about crass political 
considerations when Americans are dying and are homeless, that, and 
only that, is an abdication of our constitutional responsibilities as 
Members of this Congress.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, before I yield time to my friend from Pasco, I would 
just like to say over the last 24 hours I have been hearing about this 
ABC/Washington Post poll to which my friend from Rochester has 
regularly referred, and I have actually taken the opportunity to look 
closely at the poll itself.
  We all know that when one looks at a public opinion poll, it depends 
on how the question is asked. We continue to hear that 76 percent of 
the American people support an independent commission and they do not 
want Congress to take this action. Actually, I looked at the poll 
itself, and I would like to enlighten my friend from Rochester, if I 
might. Question No. 19 says: ``The Republican leaders of Congress have 
called for a full-scale congressional investigation of the government's 
hurricane preparedness and response effort. Apart from this 
investigation, would you support or oppose an investigation by an 
independent commission like the one that investigated the 9/11 
attacks?'' Seventy-six percent support that. Well, of course. Who would 
not support that? Who would not be supportive of that notion? But we 
continue that somehow the American people oppose having Congress do its 
job and they only want this independent commission of unelected people 
to do their job.
  Then one has to look at Question No. 18 just before that. And I 
hesitate to raise this, but the fact that this public opinion poll has 
been continually utilized as the bible when it comes to consideration 
of our legislative proposal here, Question No. 18 says: ``Do you think 
Democrats who criticize the way the Bush administration has handled the 
hurricane response mainly want to find out what went wrong or mainly 
want to use the issue for political advantage?'' And, Madam Speaker, 60 
percent said that Democrats want to use this issue for political 
advantage rather than trying to get at what went wrong.
  I would have never brought this up, Madam Speaker, had I not heard 
that 76 percent of the American people are opposed to having Congress 
do its job and instead want an independent commission.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the very distinguished gentleman 
from Pasco, Washington (Mr. Hastings), subcommittee chairman from the 
Committee on Rules and the chairman of the Committee on Standards of 
Official Conduct.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for 
yielding me this time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House Resolution 437 to 
establish a select bipartisan committee to investigate the preparation 
for and the response to Hurricane Katrina.
  Madam Speaker, Congress has an important constitutional role to play 
in providing oversight to the executive branch and Federal agencies. 
But more importantly, Congress has a responsibility to the people we 
represent to investigate the preparation and response efforts to 
Hurricane Katrina and make recommendations on how we can better prepare 
and respond to disasters in the future.
  Madam Speaker, some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
oppose the idea of a bipartisan congressional committee held 
accountable to the people and by the people who elect us. But, Madam 
Speaker, a bipartisan investigative committee held directly accountable 
by the people is exactly what is needed
  Because we never know when or where the next disaster will strike, it 
is vital that Congress move swiftly to investigate how local, State, 
and Federal governments, along with the private relief agencies, can 
better communicate with one another and coordinate the relief efforts. 
America must be better prepared to handle disasters in the future.
  Madam Speaker, I am saddened that hours after Hurricane Katrina 
rescue and recovery efforts began, lawmakers were publicly pointing 
fingers rather than focusing on how to help the victims. Clearly, 
clearly in hindsight there are things that could have been done better. 
Only now that victims have been rescued and their immediate basic needs 
are being met is it appropriate that an investigation of what happened 
begin.
  There is no question that Hurricane Katrina caused great devastation, 
the magnitude of which becomes more evident every day. But, Madam 
Speaker,

[[Page H8025]]

one of America's greatest strengths is our long-standing tradition of 
pulling together in times of need.
  I am proud that in my home State of Washington, which is located 
2,500 miles from Louisiana and the gulf coast, families are reaching 
out to help those affected. Communities are collecting food, clothing, 
and cash donations. For example, Washington apple growers have 
contributed truckloads of world-class apples to people living in 
Mississippi and the other hard-hit areas and throughout America. 
Families are opening up their homes, businesses are employing 
dislocated workers, citizens are traveling to the gulf coast region to 
help with recovery and rebuilding efforts, and schools are teaching 
children who have been displaced from their schools, homes, and 
friends.
  America has been challenged by natural disasters in the past, and we 
will no doubt be challenged by disasters in the future. Only by 
Republicans and Democrats working together in a bipartisan fashion will 
the best interests of our Nation prevail.
  Madam Speaker, there is much to be learned from this disaster. We 
must examine what worked, what did not, and what we need to do to be 
better prepared. The primary focus of this bipartisan investigative 
committee should be that we should begin to prepare for the disasters 
ahead and not to assign blame. I, therefore, urge my colleagues to 
support House Resolution 437.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Taylor), a man who knows of what he speaks.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, I recently heard the 
gentleman who represents Hollywood speaking about how it is somehow 
fair that the only Member of this body that I know of who was there on 
Ground Zero, who rode with the National Guard to distribute food 
because FEMA so thoroughly screwed up, who realizes that if it were not 
for the United States military doing FEMA's job for them, people would 
have starved to death, people would have died of dehydration, hospitals 
would not have gotten needed medical supplies, that I will not be 
allowed to subpoena witnesses.
  So as a Member of this body who was elected by as good a margin as 
anyone else here, I do object that I could not ask for a witness, that 
I could not subpoena a witness to deliver the message that needs to be 
delivered about the lessons learned in Mississippi. We do not need to 
make the same mistakes when the next hurricane hits.
  The bottom line is FEMA did make horrible mistakes that came very 
close to costing people their lives. FEMA could have avoided millions 
of dollars in unnecessary aerial replenishment of people that we could 
get trucks to, because they insisted on one point of delivery in a 
county where very few people still had cars that were running and those 
that had cars that ran could not get gasoline.
  FEMA could have sent thousands of people on their way to their 
families in other parts of the State, but did not bring gasoline in for 
them. There are a number of mistakes that we never need to make again 
as a Nation. And I would hope that I would have the opportunity to 
subpoena some of the people that need to speak on this. It does not 
need to be Bush-bashing; it does not need to be anybody-bashing. It 
needs to be an honest account of what happened.
  But how can we do that when one of the people that was at Ground Zero 
cannot ask questions of witnesses, cannot subpoena witnesses? Is that 
really fair? Does that really get to the solution of the problem? I do 
not think so. I think our Nation works best when we work together, and 
a 9/11-type commission composed of whoever needs to be subpoenaed is 
what we need to do.
  At the end of the day, I am going to vote for a commission no matter 
how bad, because something is better than nothing; but the American 
people deserve for us to do it right.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me just respond to a couple of points. First of all, under 
consideration of the establishment of this select committee, we will be 
operating under the standard rules of the House. The standard rules of 
the House allow not individuals, but allow a committee to come together 
and determine who is subpoenaed. And I will tell my colleagues that I 
know with absolute certainty that the people who are providing the 
leadership of this committee will clearly want to be in consultation 
with the Democrats, with members of the minority to ensure that any 
witness who could help get to the bottom of this problem, to the root 
of this problem is called before the committee.
  And I will tell my colleagues why. I do not represent Hollywood, 
California, by the way, I should say for the record; I represent areas 
around Hollywood in suburban Los Angeles, an area that has been 
impacted by a wide range of disasters.
  I think it is absolutely reprehensible to believe that any Member of 
this House, Democrat or Republican, would want to do anything that 
would jeopardize the ability to find out exactly what happened leading 
up to Hurricane Katrina and exactly what happened in the aftermath of 
Hurricane Katrina. So I can assure my colleagues that I am convinced 
that everyone is determined to do that.
  I should say that, as I sat down, one of my staff members reminded me 
that I mentioned this poll from The Washington Post and ABC that is the 
model, I guess, that we are following for the establishment of this 
committee; and even though it said that 60 percent of the American 
people believe that the Democrats would use this issue for political 
advantage rather than trying to get to the root of this problem, I do 
not believe it for one minute. I hesitate to say that the American 
people are wrong, but I will tell my colleagues this: I do not believe 
that the American people are right when they claim, to a number of 60 
percent, that Democrats do not want to get to the root of this problem, 
which is what they have said in this much-hailed ABC News-Washington 
Post poll.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DREIER. I yield to the gentleman from Mississippi.
  Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi. Madam Speaker, given the gentleman's 
desire to see that we get to the bottom of this, given that the 
gentleman is elected by a majority of the people from California, and 
given that I am elected by a majority of people in the most affected 
area, does the gentleman not think it would be fair that I would have 
the same right, as someone from the affected area, to subpoena 
witnesses as the gentleman from the west coast of this country would 
have?
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, reclaiming my time, I will say that that 
is exactly what exists. The rules of the House that apply for the 
subpoena process for other committees in the House will apply similarly 
for this new select committee that is charged with dealing with this 
circumstance.
  Madam Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Lafayette, Louisiana (Mr. Boustany), another individual who was 
victimized by Hurricane Katrina.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me 
this time.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution to create a 
bipartisan, bicameral congressional committee to investigate the local, 
State, and Federal response and preparation to Hurricane Katrina. As a 
member of the Louisiana delegation, I am not interested in polls. I 
want prudent deliberation, and I want substantive action.
  Congress has the obligation and duty to conduct a thorough 
investigation to provide the American people with answers. The 
investigation must be expeditious and thorough, without interfering 
with the recovery efforts. The idea of an independent commission is not 
the best option.
  It is the responsibility of Congress to look at the Federal agencies 
this body created to respond to disasters. It is the responsibility of 
Congress to identify the deficiencies and correct them.
  As a result of the 9/11 Commission, Congress responded with 
legislation based on their recommendations. Now is the time for 
Congress to provide scrutiny on how the law was implemented.
  A separate so-called independent commission would simply be a 
redundant step. The American people demand prompt answers and solid 
solutions to the bureaucratic and legal hurdles that were impediments 
to the response to Hurricane Katrina. I personally experienced these.
  As a member of the Louisiana delegation, I also believe that the 
Members

[[Page H8026]]

from impacted regions must have a participating voice in the 
investigation to provide firsthand knowledge of frustrations and 
impediments that our offices confronted. It is urgent that deficiencies 
in command, control, communication, and response be corrected. A 
bipartisan, bicameral congressional committee for oversight and 
investigation is the first step.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution so that Congress can 
exercise its duty and obligation to the American people.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
New Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this 
partisan resolution that spits in the face of the American people's 
call for a robust inquiry that is independent of politics.
  Yesterday's report by the 9/11 Commission provides data to back up 
what every American learned by watching the government's dismal 
response to Hurricane Katrina: that 4 years after 9/11, our Nation is 
still not prepared to respond to a major crisis, in this case a 
disaster that had been predicted, game-played in an exercise run by 
FEMA, and which we knew about 24 hours in advance.
  As the relief and recovery process continues and the rebuilding 
process begins, the American public must have complete confidence that 
their government is up to the task. Unfortunately, the Republicans have 
chosen to play politics and flaunt the will of the American people by 
instead proposing a select committee that is not bipartisan, that will 
not have an equal number of Democrats and Republicans, and will not 
have bipartisan subpoena power.
  Let us be honest. How can the American people trust this Congress to 
not only investigate this administration but also Congress itself? 
Because the actions of the Congress are definitely one of the things 
that needs to be investigated. The Republican Congress was responsible 
for cutting the budget of FEMA and the funding for the levees around 
New Orleans. An outside evaluation of Congress's actions is needed, not 
an internal review.
  Can the American public all of a sudden expect the Congress to 
investigate this administration after 4 years of basically no 
congressional oversight? Yes, the rules of the House have been used to 
stifle honest, robust inquiry. This is the Republican Congress that has 
not conducted true oversight hearings into the decision to go to war in 
Iraq, the lack of a success strategy in Iraq, the outing of a CIA 
operative, among many others.
  So we can stick our heads in the sand and pretend the government has 
handled the recovery well and basically do nothing, or we can appoint a 
truly independent commission to help avoid these mistakes in the 
future. The vast majority of the American public supports the 
establishment of an independent, bipartisan commission so that the 
inquiry focuses on the facts instead of getting bogged down in partisan 
politics.
  That is why the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and I 
introduced legislation to establish an independent, bipartisan 
commission modeled after the successful 9/11 Commission to investigate 
the government's response to Hurricane Katrina and make recommendations 
for reforming the Nation's disaster response system.
  The commission would be charged with evaluating what the government 
could have done to avoid the mistakes that exacerbated the crisis faced 
by hundreds of thousands of Americans along the gulf coast and caused 
untold loss of life. I mean, how is it possible, for example, that 4 
years after September 11, our local first responders still do not have 
interoperable communications systems that can talk with each other as 
they carry out their lifesaving work? That is why the commission would 
have the full authority to question the government officials, examine 
government documents, and hold public hearings.
  Finally, I want to remind my colleagues that despite overwhelming 
public support, it took months to overcome White House opposition and 
establish a 9/11 Commission, basically only getting the President and 
the Republican Congress to that point by dragging them along, kicking 
and screaming. We have heard all the same lame excuses we heard today 
as we did when we were trying to establish the 9/11 Commission.
  Today, there is unanimous agreement that the commission had the 
courage to ask the tough questions that Congress did not and that 
developed reforms that, if implemented, would make our Nation safer. 
That is what we need to do. Let us create an independent commission. 
Let us not deceive the American people through this committee that will 
do absolutely nothing to get to the bottom of the problem.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I have listened to these terms: ``sticking 
our head in the sand''; ``ignoring the problem.'' I have no idea what 
anyone is talking about when they say things like that. It is 
absolutely absurd to believe that any Member of this institution does 
not want to do everything possible to ensure that we find out what 
happened leading up to Hurricane Katrina and what has happened since 
Hurricane Katrina has hit.
  Because we, at this moment, live with the threat of Hurricane Ophelia 
off the Carolinas, so we are moving as expeditiously as possible to get 
this bipartisan committee put together, where the committee itself will 
determine how someone is subpoenaed, just as is the case with every 
committee.
  I hope very much that the gentleman from Mississippi is appointed to 
serve as a member of this select committee. He obviously has strong 
feelings. He has made it very clear that, as someone who was victimized 
by Hurricane Katrina, he should in fact be able to subpoena; and I can 
assure him, under the standing rules of the House, as a member of the 
committee, if the minority leader chooses to appoint him to that 
committee, he will be able to participate in determining who testifies 
before that committee.
  So we are in this together, Madam Speaker, whether Members like it or 
not.
  Again, I do not believe that Washington Post poll that the Democrats 
want to use this for political gain. I believe the Democrats, along 
with Republicans, want to find out exactly what has created this 
challenge at all levels of government and even in the private sector, 
with which we are contending at this point.
  Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentlemen 
from Florida (Mr. Shaw).
  Mr. SHAW. Madam Speaker, reading the resolution, it simply says that 
there is hereby established a select bipartisan committee to 
investigate the preparation for and the response to Hurricane Katrina.
  There is so much we can learn, so many missteps, but so many things 
that were done right. And I think it is time for us to come together.
  I have served in this body now 25 years; and in that 25 years, a 
little over half of it was under a Democrat House and Democrat 
leadership, Tip O'Neill, Jim Wright, three Speakers in all on the 
Democrat side. And I can tell you, the ratio of this committee, we 
would have just rejoiced in getting 9 out of the 20 spots during that 
period of time. I think it is tremendously fair, and I think the 
Speaker has been very fair in what he has talked about.
  Now anyone in this House that would suggest that any Member of this 
House or any Member of either party would whitewash or push something 
under the rug that could mean the life and death of the American people 
or the destruction of property because it is politically expedient, I 
just cannot imagine that. I cannot imagine that possibly happening.
  There is going to be good people appointed to this committee, and 
they are going to be people that really care. And I think after they 
look at it and after this report comes out, the American people will 
have faith once again in their Government.
  You know, criticism has always been made suggesting that Congress 
cannot have oversight over the laws that we pass ourselves. What do we 
do every day? We do that in committees every day. We have hearings. I 
do not care whether it is a Ways and Means Committee, the 
Appropriations Committee,

[[Page H8027]]

Transportation Committee, whatever committee we are talking about, we 
are constantly examining and reexamining the laws that we have passed 
and the laws that have been passed by previous Congresses. That is our 
job. That is what we are supposed to do. And for us to suggest or for 
me to suggest that we need to push this off to some independent body 
and not do it ourselves does not make a whole lot of sense.
  And, by the way, one of the recommendations that came out of the 
independent body from 9/11 was to put FEMA under Homeland Security. Now 
everybody is clamoring, saying that was a mistake. I think it was a 
mistake, and I think we need to very closely examine what we are doing.
  We need to do something else, too. We have appropriated an awful lot 
of money to be spent down in that area, and we are going to appropriate 
a lot more. I think the President estimated that it could be $200 
billion. And we have to watch and see how that money is being spent.
  We saw FEMA make some big mistakes in the past down in Miami/Dade 
County, where they were paying for funerals last year where there was 
not a hurricane. They were paying for funerals where there was not even 
a corpse. They were paying for all kinds of things, and that area 
should have been actually taken out of the disaster relief area when it 
was passed.
  So this the committee has a big, big job; and it should be done in 
the Congress. I do not want an oversight committee, independent of the 
Congress, not elected people, that are overseeing it and seeing how 
this money is being spent, $200 billion of American taxpayers' money.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, Democrats want to make sure that we help 
the victims of Katrina first; secondly, we want to make sure that there 
is oversight on the money that we are spending, a lot of money; and, 
thirdly, we want to have an oversight, meaningful, in depth, honest, 
searching, courageous as to why the Federal Government was so inept in 
its response and so late.
  The good news is that the men and the women of the National Guard, 
the Coast Guard and other elements of the Federal Government are now 
acting so courageously and effectively. That is what we want, and that 
is why we oppose this bill which would create a partisan congressional 
committee to investigate the inept Federal response to Katrina. Because 
we believe it is imperative to establish an independent commission 
modeled on the highly regarded 9/11 Commission.
  I will ask my friend who chairs the Rules Committee, who used to come 
to this floor on a regular basis and say, when Democrats were in the 
majority, why will you not allow us to consider an alternative? Are you 
afraid that the majority of this House will say, yes, a commission is 
the right way to go? Are you afraid that you cannot keep your Members 
in line? Are you afraid and therefore do not give us an amendment, do 
not give us a motion to recommit with instructions?
  What is the fear? It is the fact that you are so focused on not 
having meaningful oversight, of keeping it in-house, of not having 
independence, that you do not allow us and the American public's 
representatives to have that alternative considered on the floor.
  Ladies and gentlemen, oppose this resolution and continue to demand 
an independent commission, just as the American people want. We did it 
with 9/11. We can do it with Katrina. We can do the work that the 
people expect us to do. Vote against this resolution.
  Madam Speaker, let no one be mistaken about why Democrats oppose this 
legislation.
  We oppose this bill--which would create a partisan congressional 
committee to investigate the inept Federal response to Hurricane 
Katrina--because we believe it is imperative to establish an 
independent commission modeled on the highly regarded 9/11 Commission.
  We are not alone.
  In fact, a Washington Post-ABC news poll revealed this week that 76 
percent of Americans support an independent commission.
  Some Republicans support such a commission, as well.
  Just this week, the Republican Senator Vitter of Louisiana--whose 
constituents were directly affected by this devastating hurricane--
expressed his support for a commission.
  Yet, Madam Speaker, this Republican majority today has denied 
Democrats the opportunity to even consider the bill offered by Mr. 
Hastings, which would create such an independent commission to 
investigate the local, State and Federal response.
  Let's be clear: There is not bipartisanship coming from the other 
side of the aisle regarding the creation of real oversight.
  The Speaker and Senate majority leader announced this proposal 
without even consulting Democrats.
  The reality is, if this Republican majority were charged with 
investigating the actions of a Democratic administration, there is no 
doubt in my mind that its oversight would be real and vigorous.
  But as the columnist David Broder pointed out recently: ``Majority 
Republicans see themselves first and foremost as members of the Bush 
team--and do not want to make trouble by asking hard questions.''
  This majority has refused to conduct oversight over this 
administration during the last 4 years.
  Why should we believe that it is prepared to fulfill its 
constitutional responsibilities now? We have no basis for believing 
that. And, that is why an independent commission is needed.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Madam Speaker, calling this partisan Republican scheme 
``bipartisan'' reminds me of those tinhorn dictators who attempt to 
mask their authoritarian regimes by calling their countries 
``democratic.
  We need an independent citizens commission like the 9/11 Commission 
to explore the failures of every level and every branch of Government. 
The administration and its House Republican cohorts oppose this 
independent citizens commission just as they opposed the 9/11 
Commission and just as the administration erected roadblocks to that 
Commission's work at every turn.
  I say to them: Save the stonewall to rebuild the levees. With 
thousands stranded, this administration would not lead, and now it 
wants its buddies in the Congress to lead the cover-up.
  As with the formation of the 9/11 Commission, if enough Americans get 
informed and demand a genuine, independent investigation, we can end 
this Republican charade.
  Our safety demands real accountability. With such incompetence and 
indifference, what reason is there to believe that what we have 
witnessed might not happen in our own backyard, that the fate of those 
we saw in New Orleans would not be the fate of other people, be they 
poor folks in the Rio Grande Valley from hurricane, flooding or any 
other disaster, be it human-caused or natural or both? Without knowing 
objectively what, why, and how the rescue mission failed, there is no 
way to ensure that the horror that we have seen would not be repeated 
in our own communities.
  There is nothing to prevent these folks from having all of the 
congressional investigations, all of the budget hearings that they want 
to have. What we are asking for today is that you not have a sham 
``bipartisan'' commission. You bring in the citizens from around the 
country and have the kind of independent inquiry that led to a best-
selling book, by the 9/11 Commission.
  We owe it to the dead, to the displaced, to all who could become the 
next victims of a catastrophe to support a true and genuine, 
independent inquiry.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell), a member of the Homeland Security 
Committee and ranking member of the First Responder's Committee.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Speaker, and so it continues. This is a partisan, 
counterfeit commission if I have ever seen one proposed today, and I 
have two simple questions: Will the administration escape 
accountability again? And the second question is this: Will the 
administration get away with another failure?
  Please note the word ``escape''. In fact, if you look in the Bible, 
the Old Testament, Leviticus, chapter 16, verse 8, we find the origin, 
the etymology of the word scapegoat, the goat that departs.

[[Page H8028]]

  In scripture, you had two goats. One was sacrificed for our sins; the 
other escaped, was let go. That is from the English word scapen, the 
Old English, a form of escape.
  So, Brownie, he was sacrificed, and yesterday all of his minions 
resigned, all of these people that were hired. We better have an 
objective review of what happened. We better have an objective view, or 
else we are never going to get to the truth.
  This is the most redactive, the most secretive administration in the 
history of the United States. It has nothing to do with political 
partisanship either. None whatsoever.
  We have seen it repeatedly. This is the administration that can show 
negligence, ineptitude, and dangerous arrogance without ever enduring 
the burden of even limited liability. Policy disasters abound, yet 
culpability is never encountered.

                              {time}  1400

  No one who has followed the workings of this body believes that a 
commission made up of apologists will ever hold the administration 
accountable for anything.
  This is far too important for business as usual. I implore my 
colleagues to vote against the bill, to demand the creation of a truly 
independent commission. It worked 4 years ago. It will work now.
  I do not think there is anything wrong with this. And when you talk 
about the ability to subpoena, the majority will have the right to 
oversee whether we can subpoena particular people. This is phony. All 
we ask for is to let us come together. We agree we need to send help 
down there. We are doing our best, both sides of the aisle.
  Let us have an independent review of what has happened and what is 
going on. We are talking about people's lives here.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, coming together is what this is all about. 
This is a bipartisan committee that has been proposed by the Speaker, 
and we look forward to seeing those minority Members who are going to 
be part of this process.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Miami, Florida 
(Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart), the very distinguished chairman of our 
Subcommittee on Budget and Process Reform.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Madam Speaker, it is a curiosity 
to see how our friends on the other side of the aisle have now 
discovered, it seems like they discovered the Mediterranean today when 
they say that independent commissions in their view, so-called 
independent commissions, are not political.
  It is not by chance, Mr. Speaker, that the first article of the 
United States Constitution created the Congress, article I created the 
Congress. Among the duties of the Congress, constitutional duties of 
the Congress, is the responsibility of oversight.
  When a so-called independent commission is created, we have to ask 
ourselves, who funds the independent commission? Congress, created by 
the first article of the Constitution with the duty of oversight.
  Who appoints, Mr. Speaker, the so-called independent commissions? 
Congress or if Congress authorizes the President, the President 
authorizes. The decision is ours. Ours is the duty under the 
Constitution to investigate. Ours is the duty to carry forthwith 
oversight.
  What we are doing today is trying to do our duty in creating a 
bipartisan committee of this House with the solemn obligation of 
investigating this tragedy, this ongoing tragedy that is going on now 
in the gulf States, and to do so as soon as possible.
  I am proud of the fact that the House is bringing forth this measure 
today, proud to support it; and I ask all of my colleagues to do so as 
well.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to address the House on this subject 
that is before us today. I have served in the Congress for 30 years, 
the first 19 in the majority, the last 11 in the minority, so I have 
seen life from both sides. And let me tell you, today is one of the low 
moments.
  We have just experienced a national tragedy that has caused 
immeasurable pain to countless Americans, and yet here in the House of 
Representatives, nothing seems to have changed. The House is not rising 
above raw partisanship even in a time of national tragedy.
  Republicans are saying, well, we should just trust them because they 
have created something they are calling bipartisan. Well, the right way 
to create something that is bipartisan is for the two parties to talk. 
Instead, the Republicans met among themselves without talking to the 
Democrats and have proposed this select committee on a take-it-or-
leave-it basis.
  The majority cannot define bipartisanship for the minority. The 
majority has to make the real effort and be willing to do some work, 
maybe hard work with the minority to achieve bipartisanship.
  Well, why are we suspicious? They did not talk to us. The committees 
in the House and the Senate that have oversight jurisdiction were 
starting to hold hearings and suddenly the Republican leadership said, 
well, we are going to have a House-Senate committee. And suddenly it is 
not a House-Senate committee; it is a select committee.
  Well, look at the record how Republicans have done oversight. Have we 
really looked at how the White House used the intelligence, as faulty 
as it was, that was the basis for going to war in Iraq? No, we have not 
had hearings on that. We have not looked at that.
  Has the House looked at the question of the outing of a CIA agent by 
people in the White House in order to punish her husband who was 
critical of the Iraq war? No, no hearings on that.
  The actuary working for this administration withheld from Congress on 
the costs of the Medicare prescription drug bill. Should we not try to 
find out what happened? Both Republicans and Democrats were denied the 
facts before we voted on the bill. No, nothing on that.
  We had more hearings when the Republicans were in charge and there 
was a Democratic administration on whether President Clinton misused 
his Christmas card list for political purposes. That meant 7 or 8 days 
of hearings. But we cannot get hearings on these important subjects. 
And now we are told there is a bipartisan committee, a select 
committee, that is going to look into this matter.
  Well, if you really wanted bipartisanship, I say to my Republican 
friends who run the House, you need to at least talk to the Democrats 
and make an effort. But when you do not make an effort and you have a 
record of abusing the power that you have in running this institution 
and ignoring the oversight responsibilities on really important matters 
in order to protect a Republican administration from possible 
embarrassment, we have no confidence whatsoever that we are going to 
get to the facts of what went wrong in dealing with Hurricane Katrina.
  We need to rise above this raw partisanship and join together, if not 
on an independent commission which I think makes the most sense, at 
least on a committee that is equally divided, with the powers equally 
divided, where the intent is to work together. But we looked at what is 
being proposed, and the only conclusion that many of us can reach is 
that this is going to be a committee to pretend to do an investigation 
but not find out the truth.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, following Hurricane Katrina there are many 
questions that must be answered. To answer them this body should create 
a bipartisan commission of experts to investigate the failures and 
flaws of the system just like we did after 9/11, which I would like to 
remind my colleagues led to enactment of legislation that helped this 
country protect itself because the process had integrity.
  The enacting and recommended legislation also received bipartisan 
support. The purpose of a 9/11-like independent commission is not to 
fix blame, but to fix a problem. And what we are debating today is not 
sufficient because if it were truly bipartisan, it would be bipartisan 
from this point of origin. And the beginnings of this commission, or 
the beginnings of this select committee, do not bode well for what was 
intended as a bipartisan effort by both Democrats and Republicans to 
find out

[[Page H8029]]

what happened and what needs to be done.
  Rather than debate a bipartisan commission, what we are debating 
today will amount to nothing more than a whitewash because of the long 
list of items that my colleague from California (Mr. Waxman) just 
mentioned. From the intelligence failures to the true cost of the 
prescription drug bill, all these missed opportunities were left 
purposefully and consciously, not looked into, not asked into. If you 
do not think you have a problem, you will not fix a problem.
  Mr. Speaker, hundreds have died, thousands have lost everything, 
billions will be spent rebuilding the infrastructure and people's 
lives. The stakes are simply too high not to know what went wrong.
  Look what happened today in the New York Times. Michael Brown, the 
former head of FEMA, talked about where the Louisiana Governor failed, 
but also talked about where Secretary Chertoff failed. Brown's 
statement can probably be discounted somewhat as sour grapes, but 
recent stories by KnightRidder and others raised serious questions. 
KnightRidder raised questions about whether Mr. Chertoff delayed the 
Federal response. Memos were written to him, and according to a 
Presidential directive, he had authority and control and did not act 
for over 36 hours and was nowhere to be found.
  While everyone has blamed Mr. Brown, it was Mr. Chertoff who was 
responsible for managing the national response plan according to the 
Presidential directive.
  At the same time, an independent commission could monitor the 
contracts awarded during the reconstruction. Already a disturbing trend 
has emerged of awarding no-bid contracts, reconstruction contracts, to 
politically connected firms.
  USA Today points out many of these companies have been fined millions 
of dollars for overbilling the government during hurricane rebuilding 
efforts and other government projects. In fact, one company is fined a 
$3.2 million fine for what they overcharged during Hurricane Hugo. So 
the same cronyism that led to Mr. Brown's appointment is now guiding 
the awarding of contracts to the rebuilding of New Orleans.
  We need a 9/11-type commission, an independent commission, that 
basically takes the facts where they lead them, has the integrity of 
this body and the American people and the confidence so they can 
recommend the changes. Because after 4 years from September 11, what we 
saw and over the last 3 weeks is not the best of America in the sense 
of government's response. We saw the best of America from the American 
people, and we now need a commission to make sure that we finally fix 
our response for when a natural disaster or other type of disaster hits 
this country. We need a bipartisan 9/11-style commission.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I never rise on this floor 
addressing the question of Hurricane Katrina without thanking all of 
the enormous outpouring from Americans of charity and concern, 
particularly commenting on my city and my State that have welcomed now 
almost 245,000 survivors into the State of Texas and now close to 
100,000-plus in Houston, in my congressional district and other 
congressional districts in the area.
  One of the first things I did in visiting those survivors in the 
Astrodome was to apologize on behalf of the Federal Government. Each 
meeting I subsequently went to and each time I was able to touch a 
survivor or hear their story of pain, I again apologized for the 
complete collapse and ineffectiveness of our ability to deploy in 
advance of Hurricane Katrina, to be able to be on the ground with 
resources whether they be the National Guard or the military or FEMA or 
anyone else that might have contributed to the saving of lives or, in 
fact, providing the survivors with a pathway out of Mississippi or 
Alabama or New Orleans.
  So I accept and respect the apology and the acceptance of 
responsibility by the President, by the Governor and anyone else who 
chooses to do so, because the Federal Government is a safety net; and I 
think Americans understand that. But, Mr. Speaker, moving checkers on a 
checker board is not, in fact, a solution to our problem. So we cannot 
make, if you will, anew something that is broken.
  The idea of a commission similar to the 9/11 Commission speaks 
volumes for the accuracy and the responsibility that so many elected 
officials have spoken about. Be reminded that the 9/11 Commission 
working in a bipartisan fashion, equal numbered in population, if you 
will, reflecting different views, was able to bring out the dirty 
laundry but also the good points. They reminded us that one of the key 
elements of failure in 9/11 was the lack of interoperability. As a 
member of the Homeland Security Committee of the Congress, I believe a 
9/11-type Commission for Hurricane Katrina would pay tribute to the 
survivors and deceased alike and provide America with the necessary 
truth!
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1415

  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  My heart and the hearts of those I represent are with all who have 
been devastated by Hurricane Katrina. We know a bit about what it is 
like to have devastating loss in a flood. The City of Grand Forks 
flooded in 1997. Fifty-seven thousand people were evacuated, but the 
Federal response was immediate and lives were saved. Here, the Federal 
response failed and lives were lost. We need to know why.
  This is about learning what happened so it never happens again; and 
no Republican controlled, no congressional, partisan hearing process 
could ever get to the bottom of it. We need an independent commission. 
It literally is a matter of life and death, no partisan whitewash. We 
need an independent commission so we learn what happened so it never 
happens again. Lives are at stake.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Larson).
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from 
New York for the time.
  The citizens of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama deserve nothing 
less than the citizens of New York and New Jersey and Connecticut, 
those in Pennsylvania and our own Pentagon who received an independent 
commission, one that was heralded for its results and for its 
independence and its ability to work together. It served as both 
healing the Nation and bringing people together.
  The citizens of those States, the residents of the city of New 
Orleans deserve the same as the great City of New York. The citizens 
who were stranded in the Superdome or in the convention center deserve 
nothing less than what this Nation received with an independent 
commission.
  The spouses of so many of our Members, who have not been recognized 
at all, deserve nothing less than to make sure the efforts that have 
gone on already and the answers that everybody seeks are provided by an 
independent commission, an independent commission blessed by both the 
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) and the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), coming together in the way that we should as a 
country.
  We all stand prepared to work together. The citizens of Louisiana and 
Mississippi and the great City of New Orleans deserve nothing less.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States of America has gone through the worst 
natural disaster in our Nation's history. Time and time again, we have 
been hearing people say that. It is unimaginable what people have gone 
through. I have to admit I cannot imagine the suffering. I have seen it 
on television, I have heard it reported by my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisle who have been victimized themselves, but it is impossible, 
it is impossible to imagine how horrible this has been.
  We do know one thing, both President Bush, Republican, and the 
Democratic governor of Louisiana, Governor Blanco, said that mistakes 
were made

[[Page H8030]]

leading up to Hurricane Katrina and mistakes were made in the aftermath 
of Hurricane Katrina. Everyone has acknowledged that.
  We have an opportunity, we have an opportunity to come together, as 
we have in previous disasters, and deal with it, meet our 
constitutionally mandated responsibility for oversight of the executive 
branch to investigate and look at what happened at all levels of 
government, local government, State government, the Federal Government, 
even the private sector. We have a chance, Mr. Speaker, now to do that.
  That is exactly what the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) 
has proposed, working with our colleagues in the other body, to come 
together with a committee that will allow Members of both political 
parties to raise any question that they want, to allow this committee 
to have the authority to subpoena witnesses, bring them forward. I have 
to say that it is very obvious to me that this is our chance to do it.
  We are dealing with a hurricane right now in the Carolinas. We are 
dealing with other potential disasters on the horizon. I believe I have 
a responsibility to the people whom I represent, I have a 
responsibility to all the American people, just as we all do, to make 
sure that the problems that we faced leading up to and in the aftermath 
of Hurricane Katrina never happen again.
  Mark my words, everyone, Democrat and Republican alike, wants to 
ensure that we are able to address those concerns. That is exactly what 
the establishment of this commission will do.
  I am perplexed, Mr. Speaker, with the arguments that I have heard 
from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. They want to 
increase their level of participation, they want to be able to get to 
the bottom of this, and yet they are saying let us give up our 
responsibility under article 1, section 8 of the Constitution that 
charges us with this duty.
  This is our responsibility. This is a very important part of the 
reason the American people elected us as representatives, to come here 
and do their bidding, to do their job, to make sure that we find the 
answers to these very important questions.
  I hope that we will be able to have that sense of solidarity, and so 
I am saying on behalf of the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert), 
I know that he looks forward to having our colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle appointed, along with those who he will appoint to serve 
on this very important committee, and with that, with our quest of 
trying to ensure that we never go through what we have gone through in 
the past several weeks, I urge support of this very important 
resolution.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. 
Res. 437, establishing a select bipartisan committee to investigate the 
preparation and response for Hurricane Katrina.
  We have all spent much of the past two weeks witnessing and examining 
the aftermath of this catastrophic disaster. It has become increasingly 
clear that local, State, and Federal Government agencies failed to meet 
the needs of the residents of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Now 
it's this Congress's job to figure out why, and to make sure we as a 
country are better prepared for the future.
  First and foremost, our thoughts and prayers go out to the 
hurricane's victims, their families, and their friends. The loss of 
life, of property, of livelihoods and dreams has been enormous. And we 
salute all Americans who have stepped to the plate to help in any way 
they can.
  Congress has a responsibility to conduct oversight, but at this 
stage, the oversight needs to conduct oversight in a manner that does 
not interfere with rescue and relief efforts. Many questions need to 
wait; no one wants to take people away from the massive job at hand.
  But I also think some issues can and should be looked at now. Members 
want to begin doing oversight, and the American people are demanding it 
as well.
  The formation of a bipartisan select committee, composed of Members 
from the numerous House committees that bear responsibility for various 
aspects of our Nation's failure to respond to this disaster, would 
enable this Congress to take a thoughtful.
  Whatever the threat, Katrina has forced officials across America to 
take another look at disaster plans that may not be as solid as they 
previously thought.
  It has forced officials across America to take another look at the 
laws and regulations governing disaster response to identify ways to 
cut bureaucratic red tape in order to respond as quickly as possible.
  This is not the time to attack or defend government entities for 
political purposes. This is a time to do the oversight we're charged 
with doing. Our goal should be to investigate aggressively what went 
wrong and what went right. We'll do it by the book, and let the chips 
fall where they may.
  It's hard not to point fingers and assign blame in the aftermath of 
tragedy. I understand human nature, and I understand politics. But I 
think most Americans want less carping and more compassion. I think 
most Americans want a rational, thoughtful, bipartisan review of what 
went wrong and what went right. I think most Americans want to know 
we'll be better prepared the next time.
  It remains difficult to understand how government could respond so 
ineffectively to a disaster that was predicted for years, and for which 
specific dire warnings had been issued for days. If this is what 
happens when we have advance warning, I shudder to imagine the 
consequences when we do not. If ever there were a time for leaders at 
all levels of government to come together and review and coordinate 
their emergency plans, it's now.
  Some people are suggesting that only an independent body could 
properly investigate the Katrina tragedy. I think that point of view 
diminishes this House and the Members of this House. The voters didn't 
send us here to appoint commissions to do our jobs for us.
  All over this country Americans are digging deep and making 
sacrifices. If we can't lead this Country then let's at least follow 
their lead and stand up and do our job.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to House 
Resolution 437, legislation that proposes to establish a partisan 
committee to investigate the Bush Administration's clumsy response to 
Hurricane Katrina. This Congress has a proven history of lax oversight 
of the Administration, and I do not believe it can be trusted in this 
case to undertake a truly independent and probing inquiry.
  Like most Americans, I welcomed the resignation of FEMA director 
Michael Brown. He proved himself grossly under-qualified for the 
important job of FEMA chief, the key position for coordinating 
governmental response to domestic catastrophes. His previous 
professional experience with the Arabian Horse Association proved 
inadequate training for the awesome challenges any FEMA chief can 
expect to face. Mr. Brown's appointment to this critical position, when 
compared to his woeful qualifications, reveals a disturbing willingness 
to place cronyism over competence.
  Mr. Brown's unjustifiable appointment to FEMA is not the only outrage 
in the Katrina tragedy. President Bush himself has acknowledged his own 
failure and that of the entire Bush Administration. As the floodwaters 
rose and the cries went out from stranded victims, George Bush seemed 
not to notice. Only when his handlers realized the gravity of the 
situation--days after federal action could have pre-empted untold 
numbers of deaths--did the President rouse himself from the vigors of 
ranch life and deign to respond. This he did by cutting his five-week 
vacation short by two days, and dipping the wing of Air Force One as he 
jetted by.
  The American people witnessed the Bush Administration negligent 
response to Hurricane Katrina, and they want a full account of the 
political and systemic shortfalls that contributed to the inept and 
late federal response. That is why so many Americans oppose a partisan 
committee like the one proposed in this legislation. In fact, 71 
percent of the public said that the proposed congressional 
investigation would ``get bogged down in politics'' rather than 
``focusing on the facts.''
  Such skepticism is well-founded. The Republican majority of this 
Congress consistently refuses to ask tough questions of the 
Administration or hold it responsible for its misguided policies and 
outright dishonesty. The Congress, for example, did not probe the 
Administration's faulty rationale for war with Iraq, unlawful 
disclosure of a CIA agent's identity, deceptive cost estimates for its 
prescription drug proposal, and unethical dealings with energy 
lobbyists. Having turned a collective blind eye to these wrongdoings, 
there is no reason to believe that Congress will suddenly reverse 
course and put national interests above their political loyalty to 
President Bush.
  A recent poll revealed that 76 percent of Americans support the 
creation of an independent commission akin to the one formed by 
Congress after the September 11 terrorist attacks. My Democratic 
colleagues and I have proposed just such a commission to examine the 
conduct of the Federal Government, including the Congress, before, 
during, and immediately after Hurricane Katrina swept through the Gulf 
Coast region.
  Many in Washington, DC prefer a partisan inquiry into the Federal 
Government's response to the worst disaster in a Nation's history, but 
my constituents have been clear: the government's response was 
appalling and

[[Page H8031]]

they want a full and independent investigation. They want to know the 
truth, so that in the future, such tragedies are minimized and 
responded to with speed, skill, and experience.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, this is a very important debate for our 
country. I cannot imagine anything more important to the American 
people than an independent investigation of why the response to 
Hurricane Katrina fell so short of expectations. We need a full 
accounting of what went wrong at all levels of government so such 
failures don't happen again.
  I support the appointment of a non-partisan, independent commission--
modeled after the successful 9/11 Commission--to investigate the 
response to Hurricane Katrina. An independent commission is the only 
way to get to the bottom of this. The commission would look into every 
aspect of the preparation and response to Hurricane Katrina, and let 
the chips fall where they may. The American people have made it clear 
this is what they want as well. A new Washington Post/ABC poll found 
that 76 percent of the public supports the creation of an independent 
commission. The Leadership of the House badly misreads the public mood 
when it disregards the clear wishes of the American people for a non-
partisan investigation. We need to look at our government's weaknesses 
and correct them.
  I oppose the straightjacket procedure under which the House is 
considering this legislation. The Majority calls this a ``Select 
Bipartisan Committee,'' but the legislation was drafted behind closed 
doors with no input from Democrats. This is bipartisanship? The 
Leadership of the House will not even allow Democrats the opportunity 
to offer a substitute and have a straight up-or-down vote on it. Is the 
Majority's position so weak that it cannot withstand a debate?
  I don't think the American people are going to have much patience for 
partisanship on this issue. They want answers and a measure of public 
accountability, not a partisan whitewash. There are hard questions to 
be asked about the slow, disorganized, and woefully inadequate response 
to a natural disaster that left a major U.S. city uninhabitable.
  The proposal before the House calls for a House investigation that 
would be completely controlled by the Republican party. Republicans 
would outnumber Democrats on the Committee 11 to 9. There would be no 
bipartisan subpoena power. With all due respect, this would be an 
investigation in name only. It would have no credibility with the 
American people. You can't have a comprehensive and fair investigation 
when the people controlling that investigation have a vested interest 
in the outcome.
  I urge the House to reject this unfair procedure and reject the very 
partisan investigation it seeks to establish.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H. Res. 437, 
which would establish a partisan committee to investigate the Hurricane 
Katrina preparation and response. I agree with the vast majority of the 
American people, who favor an independent commission of experts similar 
to the 9/11 Commission.
  Perhaps the American people, like me, are skeptical of the 
investigative integrity of the Republican Majority. After all, these 
are the same people who took more than 140 hours of testimony to 
investigate whether the Clinton White House misused its holiday card 
database but less than five hours of testimony about prisoner abuse in 
Iraq. The Downing Street Memo has sent shockwaves through the world and 
confirmed our worst fears about the Iraq war sham, but mum's the word 
from Republicans in Congress. You also won't find a single committee 
hearing about Valerie Plame, no-bid Halliburton contracts, or U.S. 
citizens being imprisoned without a trial.
  However, now they say that we should trust them to do a thorough 
investigation and not hide any damaging evidence regarding the woefully 
inadequate response to Katrina. Given their history, I think the 
American people deserve better than an empty promise. It is an insult 
to the thousands of dead, the victims of rape at the Convention Center, 
the people who waited five days for buses that never came and so many 
others who suffered needlessly, to suggest that one year before an 
election, this Republican Congress is going to pursue indictments not 
only of their President, but of themselves.
  After all, the senior Members of Congress who would populate this 
Committee are the same ones who advocated moving FEMA into the Homeland 
Security Department, zealously pursued the downsizing of disaster 
prevention and response programs, starved wetlands restoration and Army 
Corps of Engineers funding, and presided over rising poverty rates that 
make Americans all the more vulnerable.
  These foxes have already systematically dismantled the henhouse, sat 
idly by while the hens suffered, and now want to appoint a committee of 
foxes to find out what went wrong. I vote no on this ridiculous 
proposal.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to House Resolution 
439, the resolution is considered read and the previous question is 
ordered.
  The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) 
was on his feet.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further proceedings on this question 
will be postponed.

                          ____________________