[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 145 (Friday, November 4, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H9675-H9682]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) is recognized for 
60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be 
back here on the House floor on behalf of the 30-Something Working 
Group. We have been coming to the floor, Mr. Speaker, now for a couple 
of years weekly; and over the past several months we have turned it 
into a nightly, and sometimes bi-nightly, event, where we come down

[[Page H9676]]

here and we talk about what is going on in the Nation's capital.
  We do not only talk about what is going on with regard to people who 
are our age, within the 30-Something Working Group, although the 
original mission of our group was to explain and to lay out the facts 
for people who are in our generation, in their 30s with families, and 
how the decisions that are being made here affect that group of people.
  Since then, we have broadened this really to touch on all of the 
issues, because it seemed as we got further and further into the budget 
cuts, the tax program that the Republicans have, the war, the inability 
to address the natural disasters, we have broadened our mission to deal 
with all of these issues, because all of these issues hit home to not 
only people who are in their 30s but people across the country.

                              {time}  1145

  We have come to find that the decisions over the past several years 
that we have been here, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) and I are 
on our third year. The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) 
is a freshman member. But over the past several years we have seen up 
close and certainly personal the absolute failure of the Republican 
party and their ability to govern, the total and complete incompetence.
  This is not a party issue. The only reason we have to talk about 
parties is because the Republicans control the House. They control the 
Senate. They control the White House. And when you are running $500 
billion deficits a year, you are spending $1.5 billion a week in Iraq, 
creating a welfare state there, you are cutting taxes on people who 
make billions of dollars a year here in the U.S., you take public tax 
money and you give it, to the tune of $16 billion in the last few 
months, this Congress has taken taxes from average, middle-class 
people. You sent it down here, Mr. Speaker. The average people sent it 
down here.
  And this Republican Congress and Republican Senate and Republican 
President give that tax money, $16 billion worth, to the oil industry. 
The most profitable industry in the world right now is the oil 
industry, and public tax money is going to subsidize the oil industry.
  Then our friends in the Republican party go down the ``shake-down 
street,'' K Street, where all the lobbyists are. Anyone who has been to 
Washington, you go to K Street, that is where the big major lobby firms 
are. The Republicans then, after giving the public tax money in 
subsidies to the oil companies, they go out to ``shake-down street'' 
and they shake down the lobbyists for money. So the lobbyists then give 
the money to the Republican party so they can spend it on their 
campaigns. And we have a big hole here because the only group missing 
in this equation is the American people, the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Let me share something very quick, because I 
want to make sure that Members, staff, everyone understands what is 
going on, Mr. Speaker. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) is hitting 
the nail right on the head, hitting it with the hammer right on the 
head like a good carpenter.
  I can tell you what is happening now in Washington, D.C., is 
unprecedented in history of the United States of America. Let me say it 
again. What is happening now in the United States as it relates to its 
governance, I am not saying the everyday Americans, because folks are 
waking up and going to work every day. Small businesses are going to 
open their stores to be able to bring about the kind of commerce they 
need in their local communities. Kids are waking up, going to school to 
hopefully educate themselves. But as it relates to governance we are 
falling short.
  We are robbing, a couple of years ago we could say future 
generations, I would say we are robbing Americans in the present. So 
when these kinds of activities that we are talking about taking place 
under light and under camera, then I am very concerned about what is 
going on in the back halls of Congress.
  Now I am going to tell you right now, it is not the Meek report. It 
is not the Ryan report. It not the Wasserman Schultz report. This is 
what is happening in our country right now. We have fiscal 
responsibility used as some sort of whim word or some sort of 
punchline. It is not being used in a way that it should be used.
  It is not saying to billionaires, no, we cannot give you another tax 
break because we have a war going on, as a matter of fact, two. We have 
three natural disasters that have hit our country in an unprecedented 
way. We have Medicare that some here in this Congress on the majority 
side want to cut. So we have to say no to the special interests.
  Also, I am going to tell you, and I just want to make sure that folks 
understand what we are talking about. It is unprecedented as it relates 
to a lack of governance in the history of the country.
  Now I am just going to point out just a few things here, and the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), you can continue or we can move on to 
the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz). But I can tell 
you this, USA Today, I did not print this. The gentleman did not print 
this. ``Outing of a CIA agent.''
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. One of our third-party validators.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. One of our third-party validators.
  ``Outing of CIA agent. Louisiana can't pay Katrina and Rita bills.'' 
But, meanwhile, folks are running around cutting the very programs that 
help folks in Louisiana and Mississippi and other affected areas, in 
South Florida as it relates to Wilma and others, cutting programs that 
will help the very people that State is trying to use.
  The Washington Times, let me take this little promo off here. 
Washington Times, a conservative paper here in Washington, D.C. It 
talks about issues that are coming before the Congress, and it talks 
about the other issues that are taking place in Capitol Hill, maybe not 
on the front page but within the paper talking about indictments and 
hearings.
  The Washington Post, a big front-page picture. Not about some sort of 
program or some sort of way that we are helping middle-class families, 
not talking about bringing the costs down of gas or heating oil or 
anything like that. No, it talks about the fact that the popularity, 58 
percent in a poll questioned the integrity of the President of the 
United States.
  Now I am not one to question the integrity of the President of the 
United States, but I can tell you this: That it is interesting that 
individuals can out or in said indictment, out CIA agents and then 
forget about it. Oh, like I said last night, I was going to get a cup 
of coffee, and I walked over--I cannot remember when I outed the CIA 
agent.
  The bottom line is something is very wrong as it relates to what is 
going on in this country, as it relates to governance.
  The New York Times, the same. You can pick up a paper, the Members 
when they fly back to their districts, since we finished our business 
for this week, they can pick up the papers and find the same thing. We 
cannot explain ourselves or spin ourselves out of this situation. This 
Congress is rated below, 35, 31 percent. Who is counting at this 
particular time? But I can tell you something is very wrong.
  We have to rise up and provide the leadership. That is why we come to 
this floor. We challenge the majority side to stand up and govern. And 
the reason why we have this kind of atmosphere in Washington is because 
we have not called these individuals out on the carpet. Need it be 
executive branch, Federal agencies, those that are taking the American 
people's tax dollars and doing what they may.
  $14 billion yesterday in the Budget Committee and a hike in fees in 
students loans, in student assistance at a time when we are talking 
about providing jobs. So I am just going to say that we need to be 
alarmed by some of this. We need to be able to let folks know that we 
are about changing this kind of atmosphere here in Washington, D.C.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The gentleman is absolutely right.
  The gentleman talked about, he started his last couple of minutes 
talking about the precedent-setting activity in this administration. To 
take that a step further, let us talk about just how precedent setting 
this administration is.

[[Page H9677]]

  They are certainly precedent setting in terms of ethical lapses, in 
terms of corruption and cronyism and the lack of confidence.
  You have literally, with the indictment of Mr. Libby on Friday, the 
first White House official to be indicted in 130 years. Now, throughout 
our lifetime, throughout our lifetime and the lifetime of our 
generation here in the 30-Something Working Group, you go through 
probably our earliest memory of our administration would be Nixon. We 
were young kids during the Nixon administration, but obviously that was 
a pretty significant scandal.
  Then you move forward. Nothing too terrible in the Ford 
administration. People obviously had some deep concerns or over Mr. 
Carter administration but nothing ethical to speak of. Obviously, with 
Iran Contra and the Reagan administration and the number of officials 
who were investigated and subpoenaed there were deep concerns, but no 
one indicted from the White House.
  The same thing with President Clinton. No indictments of people in 
the White House. Definitely some questions, but now we reach the Bush 
administration.
  Does the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) have the chart with him from 
the other day where we can put it up and show people and the Speaker 
what the President said during his campaign? Is that with us?
  As we are getting it, if you recall, the President when he was a 
candidate for President talked about how he was going to transform the 
standards of ethics of the White House and that anyone working in his 
administration was going to be held to the highest of standards. That 
it was not just going to be whether they have actually broke the law, 
but the standard, and here it is.
  President Bush's promise that he made as a candidate that, ``In my 
administration we will ask not only what is legal but what is right. 
Not just what the lawyers allow but what the public deserves.''
  Well, I do not know, I guess prevarication is just a common practice. 
It is just part of their culture, part of their culture of corruption 
and cronyism and incompetence.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. A double standard for people working in their 
administration.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Right. I guess they believe they can say 
anything they want to. They do not have to follow it, and there would 
be no consequences. But, see, unfortunately for them, fortunately for 
the American people, the American people get it now. They are on to 
them.
  Let us talk about the Washington Post poll, and I know we will have 
an opportunity to put this up in poster form probably next week, but 
one of the questions that the Washington Post/ABC News poll asked was, 
Please tell me whether the following statement applies to Bush or not: 
He is honest and trustworthy. In May of 2004, 53 percent of the 
American people answered that question yes and 45 percent said no. Now 
40 percent think he is honest and trustworthy, and 58 percent say he is 
not.
  I think that is in part because you can tell a lot about a person by 
the people they surround themselves with. Right now, let us look at who 
is surrounding the President of the United States or who previously was 
surrounding him.
  You have Mr. Libby, who was indicted on Friday; and, of course, it is 
not confirmed unless and until he is convicted. He is not guilty of a 
crime yet. But he was indicted. The first official in the White House 
in 130 years. The President said if somebody committed a crime they 
will no longer work in his administration.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) I know will probably talk a few 
minutes about the difference in the shifting sands of the President's 
statements. But you have Mr. Rove who increasingly it has become clear, 
as clear as a bell, that he absolutely was directly involved in outing 
a covert CIA agent, directly involved, yet he is still in the White 
House with the highest security clearance, access to the most top 
secret information.
  It is easy to see why 58 percent of the American people do not think 
the President is honest and trustworthy. Because if you take it a step 
further, the same Washington Post/ABC News poll says it has been 
reported that another subject of the investigation has been Karl Rove, 
who has been a close advisor to Bush.
  The question was, Given what you have heard or read, do you think 
Rove did anything wrong in connection with this case or not? If yes, do 
you think he did something unethical but not illegal or did you think 
that he did something illegal? Forty-nine percent of the American 
people answered that question that he did something wrong for sure. Of 
the 49 percent, 26 percent believe he did something illegal and 23 
percent think he did something unethical. Forty-nine percent of people 
asked believe that Karl Rove did something either illegal or unethical, 
and 59 percent of the people believe that he should resign from the 
White House.
  Now, is President Bush so incompetent that he is not able to cope 
without Mr. Rove by his side? I do not know. Generally, I expect that, 
I know I surround myself with a number of competent people. You make 
sure you put together a team of people that does not rise and fall on 
one person and their knowledge and ability to assist you.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I can tell the gentlewoman that, as it relates 
to national security, protection of our homeland and as it pertains to 
this case, you have the question of a CIA clandestine agent whose job 
was charged with finding out more or tracking down possible chemical 
weapons that can be used, weapons of mass destruction that can be used 
against the United States of America.

                              {time}  1200

  Now, Mr. Speaker, we are in the minority, and that means that the 
majority, which is the Republican majority, has the responsibility of 
governance, has the responsibility because they have the committee 
chairmanships. They have the Speakership. They have all of the 
leadership, and I will say at least I am not even going to talk about 
the Speakership or the leadership. I am going to talk about the 
committee chairpersons that have the responsibility to protect and have 
direct oversight over the Federal Government, making sure that we keep 
children, women, men, everyday Americans, safe.
  What are we doing as Democrats? What we have done, not only have we 
put light on what is wrong as it relates to outing CIA agents, but 
also, there was a letter written today by four of our ranking members. 
A ranking member, I want to make sure I explain, that is the highest 
ranking Democratic Member on the said committees of jurisdiction or 
concern over a particular issue, in this case, security clearance.
  This letter went to the associate director of division of security, 
and it is questioning Mr. Rove's security clearance. This did not come 
from the chairmen of the committees, did not come from any person of 
power on the majority side. This came from the minority side, on the 
Democratic side; and it is done by very fine Members, the ranking 
member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Mr. John Dingell; the 
ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Ranking Member David 
Obey; also, Defense appropriations, veteran, marine, Mr. John Murtha 
from Pennsylvania; and also the Armed Services ranking member that we 
serve with, Mr. Ike Skelton of the Armed Services Committee. They 
questioned the security clearance of Mr. Rove.
  What the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) just 
finished saying is the fact that no one is that important when it is a 
question of outing a CIA agent and others for political gain. So that 
is what we are doing right now.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the point that I think 
that we have been trying to make here in the 30-something group. You 
cannot put your political party above the interests of the country; and 
if you out a CIA agent because it may benefit your political party, you 
are wrong. You are wrong. You cannot do that because it weakens the 
country; and you did not just out her. You outed every contact she has 
made in the last 20 years. You outed the front company in Boston that 
the CIA had. They had a front company. They talked about her being at 
the Belgium University. So any

[[Page H9678]]

American now at the University of Belgium is now suspect if they have 
any contacts.
  This has ramifications well beyond what the average person could even 
understand, well beyond what we could even understand, because this 
woman was working on behalf of the United States of America and the one 
quote that sticks with me is the one CIA operative that said, outing a 
CIA agent is the moral equivalent of outing a military unit in a 
forward area. So in Baghdad, they are over there, it would be like Karl 
Rove or Scooter Libby saying to the insurgency in Iraq, the Marines are 
coming right over there in about a half an hour; that is where they are 
coming. That would be unacceptable.
  But in the covert world, that is exactly what Karl Rove and Scooter 
Libby and all the minions over in the executive branch did. It was a 
coordinated effort to out this woman because they did not like what her 
husband was saying about the war, and that is wrong. That is wrong.
  If you do not believe us, because we love our third-party validators, 
this is Melissa who was a 14-year covert CIA agent. She says, We are 
talking about lies and we are talking about capabilities. We do our 
work, we risk our lives, we risk lives of our agents in order to 
protect our country; and when something like this happens, it cuts to 
the very core of what we do. We are not being undermined by the North 
Koreans. We are not being undermined by the Russians. We are being 
undermined by officials in our own government. That I find galling.
  Could you imagine being a CIA operative somewhere in the world right 
now and you think, do they got my back in D.C.? Do they got my back? Or 
are you afraid that if I get caught up in the wrong political debate, 
somehow I may get outed by my own government?
  That is what this is all about, and to have the kind of deceit and 
lies take place out of the executive branch, let us just look at this.
  Official A in the indictment, now we are not making this up. This is 
right out of the indictment for Scooter Libby. Official A, which the 
administration has admitted is Karl Rove, on July 10 of 2003, the 
middle of the summer, Official A, which is Karl Rove, advised Scooter 
Libby of a conversation that he had earlier that week with Bob Novak, 
the columnist, in which Wilson's wife was discussed as a CIA employee 
involved in Wilson's trip. Libby was advised by Official A, by Karl 
Rove, that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson's wife.
  So Karl Rove told Scooter Libby in July of 2003 that Novak was going 
to be writing a story.
  Now, September of 2003, a couple of months later, Karl Rove says to 
ABC News to the question Andrea Owen asked, Did you ever have any 
knowledge of the CIA agent or did you leak the name of the CIA agent to 
the press? Any knowledge or did you leak it. Karl Rove said no. He lied 
to the American people. He did not lie to Andrea Owen. He lied to the 
American people. We know from the indictment he told Scooter Libby 
Novak was going to write about it, and 2 months later he says he does 
not know anything about it.
  Then he does a CNN interview just July of this year; and he says, I 
will repeat what I said to ABC News when this whole thing broke some 
number of months ago. I did not know her name, and I did not leak her 
name.
  Well, if you go back to the indictment, Official A, who is Karl Rove, 
advised Libby of the conversation that Novak would be writing a story 
about Wilson's wife. He lied. Now, he is in the White House making 
decisions on behalf of the United States of America.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Highest security clearance.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We cannot have it, unacceptable behavior, 
unbecoming of a White House official.
  Then I am going to wrap this up. I am going to go right through this 
so we can get everybody involved here.
  Then not only did Karl Rove and Libby lie to the American people, 
they lied to Scott McClellan, because he came out 2 months after the 
indictment and said what everyone already knew, and McClellan says, 
Those individuals, Rove, Libby, Abrams, assured me they were not 
involved with this. Another lie.
  Now we have to change our language a bit to respect the rules of the 
House and respect the office which we are about to discuss.
  This is out of the indictment. On or about June 12, 2003, that same 
summer that we were just talking about, Libby was advised by the Vice 
President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA in 
the counterproliferation division. Libby understood that the Vice 
President had learned this information from the CIA.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, just a second. I just want to make 
sure you identify who Mr. Libby is.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Scooter Libby was the chief of staff of the Vice 
President of the United States who has been indicted under five counts: 
two counts of making false statements, two counts of perjury and one 
count of obstruction of justice. So the Vice President on June 12 told 
Mr. Libby about Joe Wilson's wife. Then 2 months later, in September, 
the Vice President is on Tim Russert. Okay.

  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Sunday news show.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. The big time, the prime time.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. ``Meet the Press,'' syndicated affiliates, one 
of the most respected journalists in Washington, D.C.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Tim Russert, son of Big Russ, Buffalo, Ohio, John 
Carroll graduate.
  Mr. Russert says to the Vice President, this is 2 months after the 
Vice President told Libby about Joe Wilson's wife. Russert says, Joe 
Wilson says he came back from Niger and said that, in fact, he could 
not find any documentation that in fact Niger had sent uranium to Iraq 
or engaged in that activity and reported it back to the proper 
channels.
  Question: Were you briefed on his findings in February-March of 2003?
  Vice President Cheney: No, I do not know Joe Wilson. I have never met 
Joe Wilson.
  Now, talk about what is the meaning of ``is'' is. I mean, give me a 
break.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Black and white.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Two months earlier, the VP told Scooter Libby about 
Joe Wilson's wife; and then he says 2 months later, to Tim Russert, I 
do not know Joe Wilson.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. How do we know that? From the notes of the chief 
of staff of the Vice President of the United States that said the Vice 
President told him in the indictment. I mean, that is not what we are 
saying.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. It is not us.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. You talk about third-party validators, but if I 
may for a moment, the reason why the alleged activities that have been 
identified in this indictment and alleged activities that are in the 
stacks of these papers today, just today, this is not papers from the 
week or the month or over the past year. That is just today, and I 
cannot even hold up the number of papers. We could not even bring them 
all down here to the floor. There are just too many. Mr. Speaker, I do 
not know how it would look if I rolled in a cart of the newspapers that 
are reporting what we are saying.
  I can tell you this, it even comes back here to this Congress. The 
fact that we are not carrying out our oversight responsibilities and we 
are not calling this administration into check and balance as it 
relates to oversight, this is the reason why this activity is going on.
  I just want to share some frustration here with trying to get 
information from the majority side of what happened in the Clinton 
administration as it relates to subpoenas and what has happened in the 
Bush administration as it relates to subpoenas because, Mr. Speaker, I 
do not just want to come to the floor and say there were a plethora, a 
number of subpoenas that went to the Clinton administration for far 
less, for far less, and now we have the outing of CIA agents. We have 
the possibility of some hanky-panky with the intelligence that was 
given to the Congress of the United States. We have the possibility of 
other questionable activities out of this White House and from this 
administration, and there are not any committee chairmen that are 
running around saying we are going to subpoena this person, we are 
going to put them under oath, and they are going to come before this 
Congress and they are going to respond.

[[Page H9679]]

  Let me just mention something here. September 16 of this year, I put 
one of my best staff people on this. I was standing there and I told 
him, I said, listen, I want you to make a request to the Congressional 
Research Service, which is the service that we use here in the Congress 
to give us the facts that we need to know as it relates to putting 
together legislation coming to the floor, sharing with the Members, 
with the American people, and I want you to find out how many subpoenas 
were issued from not the Senate but the House of Representatives during 
the 8 years of the Clinton administration versus the going-on-now 5 
years of the Bush administration from this Congress.
  That was September 16. He makes a request. We call over to the 
Congressional Research Service. God bless them. I like them. Okay. 
These are the nicest people, Mr. Speaker, that are involved in this 
whole atmosphere here in Washington, D.C. They are over at the Library 
of Congress. Some of these folks have been there 30-plus years. Some of 
them are very young, bright, intelligent folks. I mean, all of them 
are. They are the nicest people. They come over and they brief us. They 
shudder. They are concerned, because they said, whoa, you are asking 
for something and we have to go over there and ask them, okay, the very 
same government that we are dealing with here.
  They go over, and I continue to call because usually it takes one or 
two days to get this kind of information. We call back between the 9th 
and the 16th. The Congressional Research Service spoke to the office of 
general counsel and was told the records are not complete.
  Now, let me tell you something. The records are not complete of what? 
Wait. The subpoenas were given out. Obviously, the House general 
counsel had to have something to do with the subpoenas being issued.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You mean to tell me they did not keep track? 
They do not have a file?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. It gets better. Let me just tell you. Because it 
is so detailed between September 19 and September 29, the Congressional 
Research Service spoke to four House committees and was given the 
following response.

                              {time}  1215

  This is when you talk about the Potomac two step here. Someone is 
asking for records. Oh, my God. Well, people would assume here in the 
Congress that records is one of the things that we do so we know what 
we have done in the past, so that either we can do better in the future 
or not make the same mistake in the future. But here is the response: 
The committee does not have records. That was the first one. The other 
one: Committee does not have records of previous Congresses.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Wait. They do not keep records of previous 
Congresses?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. So we do not know what is going on under this 
majority.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. The next one is: The committee is not sure they 
have those records. They could be archived. And the fourth one: The 
committee does not have records for previous years, and previous 
records may be at the National Archives.
  Now I am going to put the majority on notice right now. If those 
subpoenas, which I believe were sent out and issued under the Clinton 
administration, are in this Capitol, and I do not know of any 
subpoenas, but if they are out there, and I am going to give them the 
benefit of the doubt, if they are in this building, somebody better get 
an intern and run them over to the National Archives because we are on 
our way over there.
  This issue of covering up this whole thing, this thing of I got your 
back if you have mine, enough of it. People want change. We are trying 
to bring about that change, and we are being stymied. We are being 
locked out of information.
  One Member said, this is the people's House. I question that at this 
time. I question that because I think, and I am coming in for a landing 
here, I think there are some people that are very, very worried about 
the facts we are bringing to light to the American people and to 
Members of Congress, letting them know that we know what is going on in 
the back halls of Congress.
  Right now, like I said before, as it relates to governance, the 
country is going through some hard times; and there are some folks on 
the majority side that are not willing to govern on behalf of the very 
Americans that sent us here to represent them.
  In this House, we have to be elected. Not one Member of this House 
has been appointed. In the Senate, you can be appointed by a Governor 
if someone leaves early in their term. But in the House there has to be 
a special election. So whether it is Democrat or Republican, you are 
elected. There is one Independent. By virtue of the fact we have been 
elected to come here, we have been federalized to make sure we stand up 
on behalf of everyday Americans.
  So the hypocrisy that is going on in the House as relates to 
oversight, I am saying this on behalf of CIA agents right now worrying 
about whether their government is going to out them, and I am saying 
this on behalf of national security, which I serve on two committees 
which deal with this very issue.
  Our integrity and how other countries see us and how individuals that 
want to go into the clandestine service, that want to serve in the CIA, 
I want them, I want the best and brightest to come, but I do not want 
them to think or anyone in the State Department to think if they get on 
the opposite side of an administration that they will go after their 
wife.
  We have not even talked about that. Because Ambassador Wilson had 
something to say outside of what was on the script of the White House, 
and they could not get him because he is a person that dotted his I's 
and crossed his T's, they decided to go after his wife. We are going to 
go after your wife.
  To women in this country, you need to be concerned about that. 
Someone cannot get to your husband, but they are going to come after 
you. We need to disabuse ourselves of that.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Well, you bet your sweet bippy they are 
worried. They are worried you are asking for those documents. Because 
there are those on the other side of the aisle that would try to lead 
people to believe that we are just a bunch of malcontent Democrats who 
are standing on the floor complaining about something inconsequential. 
It is just the same old, same old. Not true.
  Look at the reasoning and the motivation that was behind the outing 
of a covert CIA agent and of the planning and machinations that were 
going on in the White House to conceal and deceive the American people 
about what their plans were. It was all about making sure that they 
could have their way in going to war in Iraq. That is what it all 
boiled down to. And the consequences of that motivation are that now we 
have more than 2,000 American soldiers, men and women, who are dead, 
who lost their lives because this administration was hell-bent on being 
right, facts be damned.
  It made no difference to them that all the evidence mounting showed 
that they were wrong, that there were no weapons of mass destruction. 
It was obvious there was no other reason to go into Iraq other than the 
President and his people decided we should, long before September 11. 
With all the documentation that has come out now pointing to the fact 
that, soon after the President was elected in 2000, it had been decided 
that they were going to go to war in Iraq, and what they have been 
doing for the last few years leading up to our entering Iraq and since 
then is assembling the facts around their decision.
  Then subsequent to our entry into Iraq and it being discovered there 
were no weapons of mass destruction, in part because Joe Wilson went 
there to Niger and demonstrated factually that that was not the case, 
subsequently they have had to prevaricate. They have had to lie, 
because, oops, it was shown that not only were they wrong but they were 
deceitful.
  Can you think of any more heinous an act than deceiving the American 
people and the world on the ultimate sacrifice that Americans are asked 
to make for their country?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. If the gentlewoman would yield, that is a 
tremendous point. They have deceived and misled the American people. 
Then, when the Democrats want to change things and try to take things 
in a new

[[Page H9680]]

direction, people say, well, we were all dealing with the same 
intelligence. So we say, well, let us go and look at the intelligence. 
When we say let us try to fix this problem together in a bipartisan 
way, because there is so much at stake here, we get stymied.
  Senator Reid had to shut the Senate down the other day on behalf of 
the American people so that we could get a good, solid overview of the 
intelligence. We are not saying this just to say it.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. They have no respect for the American people. 
They have no respect for the American people. When you are willing to 
do anything and say anything to have your way, regardless of the 
consequences, that demonstrates that you have no respect for the people 
that you represent, for the people that sent you to Washington to do 
right by them.
  As elected officials, the three of us and all our colleagues here who 
serve in this Chamber, who have stood for office, most of us many 
times, what we are doing when we go and put our name on that ballot and 
ask people to support us, we are asking them to put their faith and 
their trust in us. We are telling them that we respect their opinion, 
that we will honor their opinion.
  People in America do not expect to always agree with what we do here. 
I know there are people in my district who sometimes agree with me and 
sometimes they do not agree with me. But what they have told me, and I 
know each of my colleagues have heard this same thing, they have told 
me, Debbie, I do not always agree with you, but at least I know you are 
up there fighting for what you believe in. I know that you have the 
utmost integrity. I know I can put my faith and trust in you and that 
you are always going to look me in the eye and tell me exactly how 
things are and tell me the truth.
  There is no one in America that the President can look in the eye and 
say he has told them the truth. Because, although he specifically has 
not been accused of anything illegal, he specifically has not been 
accused of anything illegal, you are a reflection of the people you 
surround yourself with. And, essentially, by allowing Karl Rove to 
remain in the White House and by hanging on to his staff that have been 
accused of unethical behavior--


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dent). The Chair must remind all Members 
that remarks in debate may not engage in personal offense toward the 
President by accusation or insinuation of wrongdoing.
  The gentlewoman may proceed.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Forgive me, Mr. Speaker, but there are times 
when this is so outrageous and the conduct that is going on in this 
administration is so outrageous that it is difficult to contain myself 
and it is difficult to keep that outrage bottled up inside.
  Because that is what we have been asking for weeks now. Where is the 
outrage? Where is the outrage from the Republican leadership in this 
Chamber? They certainly had plenty of outrage during the previous 
administration.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. If the gentlewoman will yield, this is not 
personal. Let us be absolutely clear about this. This is business. This 
is about the business of the American people.
  When we have the Chief of Staff of the Vice President lie to a Grand 
Jury on two counts and of perjury, two counts of false statements to 
Federal agents and of obstruction of justice; when we have the Deputy 
Chief of Staff of the President lie to the American people on two 
separate occasions; when we have the Vice President of the United 
States knowingly make a comment to Scooter Libby that he knows about 
the ambassador's wife and then goes on Meet the Press and says he does 
not know, this is not about Democrat and Republican, this is about the 
future of the country.
  This country is going in the wrong direction, and every ounce of 
energy in the White House is geared towards covering up the outing of a 
CIA agent. So this is not personal. This is about the 700,000 people we 
each represent and the 300 million people that are in this country. It 
is about the wage gap, the gap between rich and poor, the increased 
number of poor people in our society and the lack of an adequate 
response to the greatest natural disaster in the history of the 
country. That is about executing our constitutional obligation, our 
constitutional responsibility.
  This is this is not personal, Mr. Speaker. This is not personal. This 
is about us as elected representatives in the United States Congress, 
who swear to uphold the Constitution, wanting to take the country in a 
new direction, wanting to change the way business is done down here and 
to get rid of the corruption and the cronyism and the incompetent 
leadership. That is what this whole thing is about. It is not personal.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. If the gentleman will yield, I can tell you why 
this is not personal. It is not personal for this Congress and it is 
not personal for the leadership, but it is personal to the American 
people. We have taxpayer dollars we are trying to nickel and dime. We 
want to nickel and dime Medicare, we want to nickel and dime Medicaid, 
we want to nickel and dime free and reduced lunches for poor people 
here in this country, and then we want to get excited about possibly 
saying something about someone in power?

  We respect the rules of this House. We appreciate the integrity that 
is in the rules of this House. We do not want to abuse the rules of 
this House. But as it relates to the majority leadership and the 
majority on the other side and the majority in the Senate and as it 
relates to the White House, I want them to live by the same rules that 
everyday Americans have to live by.
  I want it to be personal for them just like it is personal for the 
person that can only afford to put $10 in their gas tank because they 
do not even know what it means to have their gas tank full because gas 
prices are so high.
  I want the folks that get driven around this place, that are being 
chauffeured around here in cars that do not know what it means not to 
put a debit card into a gas pump but only be able to get $15 out, I 
want them to feel it just as personally.
  I want them to feel personally what the mother who has to think about 
whether her son, who is living in the heart of America, and she may 
very well be in a trailer park, and because I was federalized, I 
represent her, too. I want them to feel personally the decision she is 
going to have to make when the budget is passed by this Republican 
majority controlled Congress cutting free and reduced lunches. That is 
personal. That is personal.
  So I could care less about the folks of power and influence and what 
they say and how they do it. We are going to stay within the rules. We 
are going to stay within the rules, but I want to make sure that folks 
understand that we have individuals out in this country that are 
suffering, white, black, Native American, Hispanic.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Asian.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. And Asian. They are suffering, and we have to 
give them voice. We have to give them voice, sure, when we start outing 
CIA agents, when we start seeing the majority side looking the other 
way. Even though they know what is going, they are not going to look 
because their friends are there and they do not want to do that.
  In the Clinton administration, Democrats called the administration 
officials out on things that they were doing that was wrong.

                              {time}  1230

  That is our responsibility in the Constitution of these United 
States.
  So when the gentleman from Ohio speaks of not putting party over 
country, I think that if we were to look at what we do now and what we 
have done in the past, we have always put country over party. The 
everyday Republican does not want his government operated by what the 
national GOP leadership says that it should be, that we need to do that 
and do this, but they are messing with the lives of everyday Americans. 
They do not endorse that.
  So the problem here in this House is that we are sharing that 
information with the American people. We are not over at the Democratic 
National Committee sitting there sharing it with Democrats only. We are 
here sharing it with the American people; and we are letting the 
Members of this House, the majority and the minority, know that we all 
must go see the wizard and get some courage and some heart and

[[Page H9681]]

stand up to some of these very few individuals that are in the minority 
on the majority side that are running and pulling the sticks behind the 
curtains on behalf of the American people. Now, that is personal.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, what it boils done to is that 
here in the House the rules hem us in, and we have to talk around a lot 
of what we might like to say more directly, but the American people 
elected us to speak truth to power. I mean, that is the bottom line. We 
could not have more power in the White House than there is right now, 
and they exercise every bit of it. They exercise every bit of it, 
regardless of the consequences, regardless of the plight of the people 
whose decisions they affect. There are so many examples of how what we 
are doing on this floor allows us to reveal that truth.
  The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) has a chart right there that will 
help us ferret out a little bit of that truth.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, our friend from 
Florida was talking about what is going on and how personal this is.
  I mean, we have an obligation here. What is going on today is the 
Republican majority has created a welfare state. They have created a 
welfare state. They have created a welfare state here in the United 
States, but the welfare state is for a very small group, corporations. 
Sixteen billion dollars in the last few months of corporate welfare 
went to the oil companies, the most profitable quarters they have had 
in decades; and public tax money was given to the tune of $16 billion 
to subsidize them. Pharmaceutical companies have gotten over $100 
billion in average people's tax money, sent down here. The Republican 
majority gave it to the pharmaceutical companies. So we have a welfare 
state in the United States of America.
  But we also are creating a welfare state in Iraq. While we are 
cutting free and reduced lunch and Medicaid and Medicare, health care 
programs for United States citizens, we have opened up 110 primary 
health care centers in Iraq. We have educated 2,000 health officials. 
Three point two million kids in Iraq have been vaccinated. We have 
rehabbed 2,717 schools and trained 36,000 teachers.
  Now maybe we should be doing this because we invaded the country and 
bombed the heck out of it. So maybe we should be doing it. But when 
they are giving billions to the wealthiest corporations in the country 
and they are cutting free and reduced lunch for kids and they are 
doubling the cost of college tuition and raising the fees for student 
loans to the tune of $5,000 over the life of the loan, they are doing 
what is best for the Republican Party and they are doing the absolute 
worst thing they could possibly do for the United States of America.
  And let me tell the my colleagues why, Mr. Speaker. The Chinese 
government in the country of China produced 600,000 engineers last 
year. We produced 70,000, half of those engineers foreign born. How are 
we going to stimulate our economy, create new jobs, innovate the new 
technologies that are needed to be innovated so that we could keep on 
the cutting edge of a vibrant global economy if we are not investing 
into the very people who are going to create that wealth? We cannot ask 
poor, unhealthy, uneducated kids to go into the workforce and create 
wealth for us. But yet we are making the investment in Iraq and we are 
giving away billions in tax dollars to the oil companies and to the 
pharmaceutical companies.
  That system is corrupt. That is a corrupt system. Corrupt. And the 
way it is being administered and the way government is being 
administered is at a level of incompetence that we have never really 
ever seen. With the war, the execution of the aftermath of the war, the 
rehab, the nation building, complete incompetence on behalf of the guys 
who wear the suits and ties. Complete incompetence.
  The response to Katrina, the highest level of incompetence possible 
because they put people in charge of FEMA who were political cronies, 
and the level of cronyism in this administration is really higher than 
we have really ever seen. And they are not cronies because they know 
the administration. They are cronies because they get the job and they 
are not competent.
  We all know if one gets a political job and they get to hire people 
that they are going to hire people they know because this is a business 
about loyalty. But we also have to hire people who are competent. And 
Mr. Brown, Brownie, ran an Arabian horse show or something like that, 
and then he is in charge of FEMA, the point person for emergencies in 
the United States?
  Now this could have very well been a terrorist attack. There could 
have been explosives. There could have been bombs on the levees instead 
of a Category 4 hurricane. And our response would have had to have been 
the same, and it was not a good response. It was not an adequate 
response.
  So the level of incompetency here is unreal. It is a corrupt system 
that takes care of corporations and ignores every other American. I 
just want to tell my colleagues it would be nice if someone on the 
other side, if someone in the Republican Party, would just stand up and 
take responsibility. We get lectured all the time about personal 
responsibility. Please someone stand up and take responsibility, 
because they are weakening the country. They are weakening the country. 
And we have a constitutional obligation to try to offer solutions.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. No.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield as I prepare to take 
responsibility?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. No, you guys have the floor all the time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I will take responsibility, and I am looking 
forward to it in just a couple of minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding to me.
  I simply would like to say that when it comes to the issue of taking 
responsibility, we clearly are going to respond to the kinds of 
outrageous things that we have been hearing for the last few minutes 
about the state of the U.S. economy, about where we are headed as a 
Nation and about the kinds of challenges that we have and, quite 
frankly, about our desire to work in a bipartisan way to address these 
issues. So I am proud to take responsibility for these very important 
things.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, will the gentleman 
be willing to support an independent commission for Katrina, a 
bipartisan commission?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding to me.
  Let me just say right now we are very proud of the fact that we have 
put into place a committee that the Speaker of the House has 
established which has been interviewing, in fact, among others, Mike 
Brown, the gentleman just mentioned by my friend.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Dent). The gentleman from Ohio controls 
the time.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, we want a commitment from the 
gentleman, if he is willing to take responsibility, to establish with 
us a bipartisan committee like the 9/11 Commission to oversee Katrina 
in which Democrats and Republicans both would agree and both have equal 
power in the commission like the 9/11 Commission.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, that is basically what has happened with the 
establishment of the committee which was put into place which was 
modeled after the committees that have looked at the October Surprise, 
that have looked at Iran-Contra, other issues that have come forward. 
We tried to put together a bicameral committee that was focused on it.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate that, 
but the bottom line is this, my good friend from California: Your 
committee is controlled by the majority party. It

[[Page H9682]]

is not a bipartisan equal commission like the 9/11 Commission. The 9/11 
Commission was the most successful commission we have had in trying to 
address a major terrorist attack in the United States. Let us put a 
bipartisan commission together and look at Katrina.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, let me just say to my friend that I believe 
that what we should do is we should take our constitutional 
responsibility, our constitutionally mandated responsibility according 
to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, for oversight of the 
executive branch. We should pursue that as vigorously as we possibly 
can.
  And I will say to my friend, that if, in fact, after doing that, 
having Democrats and Republicans work in a bipartisan way on the 
commission that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) is 
chairing, if we do not see the kind of information that we knew, if we 
do not see the kind of scrutiny that we all believe should be applied 
in looking at the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, I will support the 
gentleman's motion of putting together that bipartisan commission.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Reclaiming my time, you are leaving all of the 
decision-making power in the hands of the 11 Republican Members.
  Mr. DREIER. Let me just say, no, we are not doing that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Ohio controls the time.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, the way the 
committee is set up right now, there are 11 Republicans and there are 9 
Democrats on the committee. The Democratic Party cannot subpoena a 
witness without the support of the Republican Party. We cannot subpoena 
the documents. We cannot get the kind of information that we need 
without the approval of the majority party, and you are asking the 
American people to trust the Republican Party, the same people that 
appointed Brownie to run FEMA, and he is still on the payroll.
  Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. DREIER. I am happy to respond to that by saying very simply that 
it is not the work of the Republicans or the Democrats. It is the work 
of the committee. It is up to the committee to make a determination as 
to whether or not someone was subpoenaed.
  Now you have referred to him, using the same terminology that the 
President referred to Michael Brown as, which I understand is 
``Brownie.'' Did he or did he not appear before that bipartisan 
committee that was established by Speaker Hastert?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, he did. But the 
same party that is overseeing him has left this man on the payroll 
making $148,000 a year.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the 
gentleman from California, you are the chairman of the Rules Committee. 
You spend as much time restricting the Democrats' ability to offer 
amendments and act in a bipartisan fashion and provide input to the 
policies that are forced through this Congress than anyone else in this 
Chamber. There is absolutely no bipartisan effort made here.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding to me.
  Let me just say that that is completely untrue. Of the amendments 
that have been made in order in this Congress, 161 of the amendments 
reported out of the Rules Committee have been either Democratic 
amendments or bipartisan amendments; 143 of the amendments have been 
Republican amendments. More amendments have been made in order that 
were either bipartisan or offered by Democrats than Republicans. So it 
is a specious argument that my friend has made.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, we are getting 
into some procedural stuff here, but the Republican Party does not need 
to offer amendments because they get everything they want into the bill 
during the committee process. They offer it. They do not need to offer 
amendments.

                          ____________________