[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.
____________________