[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 148 (Wednesday, November 9, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H10136-H10142]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          OUTING OF CIA AGENTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fortenberry). Under the Speaker's 
announced policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) 
is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the opportunity for the 
30-something Working Group to be back in action, and our friend from 
Iowa has not solved all the world's problems tonight. We will take it 
from here. We are ready, willing, and able to take the country in a new 
direction. A couple of the issues that the other side has addressed, 
one is the meth labs. I had a meeting recently with some sheriff 
deputies in Trumbull County, Ohio, from Geauga County, Ohio, and 
Ashtabula, Ohio, who were saying that they were unable to confiscate 
the methamphetamine labs because the drug program, the Federal drug 
task force program has been cut. So maybe we can work together in a 
bipartisan way to try to increase the funding for that, and you will be 
supportive, I am sure, so that we can make sure we crack down on these 
methamphetamine labs. This is something that we want to do.
  Also, Mr. Speaker, the other side brought up the fact that a CIA 
agent was outed, and there was some disagreement. The prosecutor here, 
Mr. Fitzgerald, said that the reason Scooter Libby was not charged with 
outing a CIA agent is because he lied so much to the grand jury that he 
could not prove it. And he used the example, he said that I am like the 
umpire. I am the Federal prosecutor. I am the umpire. And as I was 
trying to make a decision here of whether or not he outed the CIA 
agent, Scooter Libby threw sand in my eyes. So I was not able to get to 
the point where I could actually charge him with outing a CIA agent 
because he threw sand in my eyes.
  So he charged him with two counts of making false statements to a 
Federal agent, two counts of perjury to a grand jury, and one count of 
obstruction of justice. And how the other side could somehow say that 
that is all right, that is okay, I cannot believe that they would just 
charge him with that. You just lied to a grand jury? That was all you 
did? Okay. Well, that is all right. You did not out a CIA agent, or at 
least we could not prove it. And before we get going here, there are 
some CIA agents, former covert operatives that I think would disagree.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Those are third-party validators that were 
actually CIA agents. Am I correct, sir?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. That is absolutely right. Here is one CIA agent, 
Jim Marcinkowski. This was on ``60 Minutes.'' He says exposing 
Brewster-Jennings, let me give a little background here. When Joe 
Wilson's wife was outed, when it became public, the world all of a 
sudden knew that everyone she was associated with and affiliated with 
was a part of the CIA in some way, shape or form, and so they also 
outed Brewster-Jennings, which was a front company, CIA front company 
in Boston, not to mention the 20 years' worth of contacts that also got 
outed.
  But here is a quote from Jim Marcinkowski on ``60 Minutes,'' a former 
covert CIA agent. He said exposing the Boston firm Brewster-Jennings 
could lead foreign intelligence agencies to other spies. There is a 
possibility that there were other agents that would use the same kind 
of a cover so they may have been using Brewster-Jennings just like her. 
Another one from The Washington Post, a small Boston company, listed as 
Valerie Plame's employer, suddenly was shown to be a bogus CIA front 
and her alma mater in Belgium discovered it was a favored haunt of an 
American spy.
  By Karl Rove and Scooter Libby and the executive branch outing Joe 
Wilson's wife, they put a lot of people in jeopardy, and they hurt our 
intelligence capabilities all over the world because now people who 
have dealt with Americans who went to the University of Belgium or who 
had dealings with Brewster-Jennings are now being looked upon as 
suspect.
  Not only that, the word now is that the spouses of American 
ambassadors are being looked at suspiciously because now people think 
just because Valerie Plame was the spouse of an American ambassador and 
she was a CIA agent that every other spouse of an ambassador all over 
the world may be a CIA agent. This has ramifications, Mr. Speaker, that 
we do not even realize yet. And that has done nothing but weaken the 
country.
  Now, here is the ultimate third-party validator on why the corruption 
going on in the White House right now must stop, because it is hurting 
our ability to fight the war on terrorism. They are weakening our 
ability to fight this war. This is Melissa, who was a 14-year covert 
CIA operative, and she was asked a question on ``60 Minutes.'' She says 
because we are talking about lives, and we are talking about 
capabilities, we do our work. We risk our own lives. We risk the 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

[[Page H10137]]

North Koreans. We are not being undermined by the Russians. We are 
being undermined by officials in our own government. That I find 
galling.
  Mr. Speaker, to come to the floor, for our Republican friends to come 
to this floor and to somehow defend this is crazy.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. It is outrageous. I would be happy to yield.
  MS. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Because, you know, I think most people would 
understand why a CIA agent, a fellow CIA agent, would be outraged at 
the conduct coming from the Vice President's chief of staff, that he 
would do anything that would potentially put their lives or the lives 
of their colleagues in jeopardy. So some people might say, well, of 
course that would upset other CIA agents, and of course they would 
think that that was a problem. But in the spirit of continuing our 
desire to demonstrate that this is not just our opinion, and that we 
have some other third-party validators who agree, let us look at what 
Ed Gillespie, who is the chairman of the Republican National Committee, 
said.
  He was speaking to Chris Matthews on ``Hardball,'' and Chris Matthews 
asked him what he thought of it. And his comment to Chris Matthews then 
was that I think if the allegation is true, to reveal the identity of 
an undercover CIA operative is abhorrent, and it should be a crime and 
it is a crime. And then Chris Matthews went on to ask Chairman 
Gillespie, he said, it would be worse than Watergate, would it not? And 
Gillespie's response was, Yeah, I suppose in terms of the real world 
implications of it, it is not just politics.
  I mean, if that is not the ultimate third-party validator saying that 
it is abhorrent and it should be a crime and it is a crime to reveal 
the identity of an undercover CIA operative. Now, let us just make sure 
we say that Mr. Libby has only been accused of conduct related to that 
likelihood, not convicted of that. So, you know, of course we want to 
remember that this is a democracy and in our democracy you are innocent 
until proven guilty. However, it is really deeply disturbing that this 
is the first time in 130 years, 130 years, that we have had a White 
House official indicted on anything, never mind betrayal of this 
country's deepest secrets. And we have a long list of people who have 
commented on that possibility. We also have in the White House, still, 
I mean, Scooter Libby has left. Scooter Libby has now resigned from the 
White House. But you still have Karl Rove there in the White House as 
the right hand of the President with full, the highest level of 
security clearance.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Deputy chief of staff.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Deputy chief of staff.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. He is the deputy chief of staff in the White House, 
in the West Wing.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. He has multiple titles, actually. I know that 
he has more than just that one title. And the President has not 
dismissed him or asked him to step aside.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Why is that? Can I ask, can we have a discussion 
here, a serious discussion, you know, at 11 o'clock at night? Why would 
the President not fire him?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You know, let us just give them the benefit of 
doubt. Let us say we did not think the President should fire him. We 
do, but let us say, why has the President not suspended him at least 
until he called upon even the White House council to do an internal 
investigation? They are really good at copping to internal 
investigations and not allowing independent investigations of 
wrongdoing or potential wrongdoing. But he has not even suggested that 
his duties should be suspended so that you can clear the cloud away.

                              {time}  2300

  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Maybe we should clear up exactly what happened 
here. In the indictment on or around June 12 or 13, Karl Rove told 
``Scooter'' Libby about Joe Wilson's wife. On or about June 12 Karl 
Rove told Libby about Joe Wilson's wife and that Bob Novak was going to 
probably write an article about it. So Rove was tipping off Libby that 
this article was going to be in the paper and we need to deal with this 
somehow. That was in June.
  On September 14, Karl Rove tells ABC News that he does not even know 
who Joe Wilson is or his wife or anything else. And then 2 years later, 
I think it may have been last summer, he reiterates the fact.
  Okay, so we have Karl Rove telling Libby one thing about Valerie 
Plame and then telling the American people a few months later he does 
not know anything about it. That is why Karl Rove is no longer fit to 
serve the American public because he did not lie to ABC News. He did 
not lie to CNN. Karl Rove lied to the American people. Period. Dot. End 
of story. And he tried to revise, he tried to recant but he just cannot 
do it. This is the fact.
  The indictment says he lied to the American people. He needs to be 
fired. I mean, no one here would accept that from their staff.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. If I can, can I just be the majority right now?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I would love for the gentleman to be the majority 
right now.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Can I role play for a minute for the Republican 
majority?
  What they are doing in response here in this House to what the 
gentleman has just pointed out that is public record, third-party 
validator, using the very words of these individuals. This is what the 
majority is doing.
  We read it in the paper. We are hearing it on the news. People all 
over the world are talking about these allegations. The indictment has 
quotes of individuals where they contradict one another as it relates 
to the outing of a CIA agent, but they are my friends. And even though 
they are not from my district and they did not vote for me, I have 
their back.
  Whatever the Democrats say and whatever they may write, or the 
ranking member of said committee of oversight that wants to review 
national security clearances for these individuals, I will do nothing 
to help in that environment to be able to bring about protection of 
national security clearance credentials for individuals that are 
questioned in these allegations. Not only will I not talk about it, I 
will not even have a hearing on it. As a matter of fact, I will not 
even allow a hearing on it.
  We would come to the floor and we would say, it is just the Democrats 
once again being negative, not being productive. All they can do is 
talk about things that are not of any consequence to national security.
  Now, that is what they are doing. That is what they are doing. If you 
ask the majority about oversight, you heard in the last hour we had a 
couple of hours ago, I read the record under the Clinton 
administration, 1,089 subpoenas of the Clinton administration for far 
less, for far less.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. How many under this administration?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. At that particular time only 11 subpoenas for 
Republicans. Under this administration, we are still getting that 
information. Far less. The Republican-controlled Congress, thousands 
upon thousands of hours of staff interviews of Clinton administration 
officials.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. $40-some million.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Millions of dollars of taxpayer dollars, and we 
have the outing of a CIA agent. We have an indictment for the first 
time in years.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. One hundred thirty years.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. One hundred thirty years of a White House Chief 
of Staff of the Vice President of these United States indicted. We have 
an Official A that we now know as the Senior Chief of Staff or 
Assistant Chief of Staff to the President of these United States, and 
not a mumbling word. Not one floor speech. Not one letter. Not one 
hearing in the people's House.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. No outrage, no floor speeches, no 1-minutes, 
no 5-minutes.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. No message meeting from the Republican 
Conference about we need to make sure that we stand up to our 
constitutional responsibilities.
  So when we talk about a culture of corruption and cronyism and 
incompetence, that is not what we are saying. That is what the American 
people are thinking and what they know. That

[[Page H10138]]

is the reason why this Congress has between a 35 percent approval 
rating to 31 percent approval rating. It is not our doing. It is the 
doing of the majority that are not doing their job.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Almost 60 percent of the American people believe 
that Karl Rove needs to resign, 60 percent. This is not me or my 
colleagues or the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), who 
failed a little bit on us tonight. We tried to squeeze him into the 30-
something Group. We tried to help him out, then he faded on us, got a 
little sleepy, started yawning. We had to dismiss him.
  But here it is. There is a poll. This is a Washington Post poll in 
November of 2004. Fifty-nine percent of people in this country believe 
Karl Rove needs to resign.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Does the gentleman remember when we were 
growing up, it seemed like any time you turned on C-SPAN or there was a 
shot of the Congress doing something, when we were kids, it was a shot 
of the Congress in a hearing, the Iran Contra hearings or some kind of 
investigatory hearing that would immediately be called. The ink on the 
accusation would not be dry before congressional hearings were called 
to investigate.
  Am I missing something? Maybe I am not in the loop.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Article 1, section 1 of the United States 
Constitution creates this Chamber right here, the people's House. And 
we have oversight of everything else that happens in the government, 
over the executive, over all the agencies, the Cabinet, departments and 
everything else. This is the people's House.
  And as my friend from Florida likes to say, you cannot get appointed 
to this House. You have to run if I pass out here and I die.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. We do not want that.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I do not want that either. I am not ready. But if I 
pass out here and I die, the Governor in Ohio will call a special 
election and people will run for my seat and have to get elected here. 
That is the bottom line. This is the people's House. We directly 
represent the people in our district. And we have the ability in this 
Chamber to oversee every other aspect of the government.
  But our Republican friends refuse to investigate the CIA leak. They 
refuse to have an independent or create an independent investigation. 
This has become so political here that we cannot get straight answers 
on how to fix the way our government runs.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Let me just, like we say, put the cookie on the 
bottom shelf here.
  Veterans Day is Friday. I am just thinking about this. Folks have put 
statements in the Record. Our veterans, we love them, tear drops on the 
paper while they are writing it. And here we are living in an 
environment now in the 109th Congress, Republican-controlled Congress, 
where it has been proven, literally put on paper to be judged in a 
court of law that officials in the White House several years ago, 
someone finally came forth and told the truth or said that someone 
lied. And they have the power to call these White House officials in a 
public hearing to talk about what happened. They have the power to do 
that, but they choose not to.

  Now, just like I have this mike here and this podium, there will be 
some Members of Congress that will be asked to speak at a Veterans Day 
event and they are going to talk about the war on terror. And they are 
going to talk about winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis and other 
groups that are out there. And they are going to talk about the troops 
and their commitment. But I tell you one thing that they will not talk 
about. They will not talk about the fact that we know what is going on.
  We are not going to call these people before Congress and ask 
questions like we are supposed to when CIA agents are outed, when 
national security is jeopardized. We are not going to, when there is 
almost close to prima facie evidence that it jeopardized national 
security as it relates to a person's job, who was to find out and seek 
out those countries that have weapons of mass destruction for the 
reason that we went to war in the first place.
  I am just in the middle of what they are doing or not doing.
  By the way, I want to let you know that I have voted to make sure 
that you veterans of wars that allow me to go into a free House in the 
Congress to represent you, that I have voted to increase your 
copayments. I voted to make sure that the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs over the next 5 years makes $798 million in cuts that very well 
will result in two things: one, making sure that you pay higher fees 
when you go to the Veterans Affairs Department for a death benefit, or 
make sure that you wait longer to see a specialist in the Veterans' 
Department and clinics and hospitals.
  That will not be said. That will not be shared with those veterans. 
But I guarantee you, as we sit here, letter after letter after letter 
from these groups that are saying that they are against what this 
Republican majority is doing. So when we see what is public knowledge 
here in the United States and throughout the world, that it is okay as 
long as it is the Republican White House and the Republican Congress 
that is condoning it to happen.
  In the Senate, in the Senate I am so glad that the Democratic 
leadership used Rule 21 to call them into a closed session, to force 
the Republican majority to come with Democrats and Republicans, three 
on each side, to finish looking into the allegations of false 
information given to the Congress when it was time to go to war.
  So when we start talking about the budget and we start talking about 
corruption and cronyism, it is happening in the moment. And I am so 
glad that I am a part of a party and have leadership that is willing to 
stand up on behalf of the American people.
  Guess what? There are some of my Republican friends, because I talked 
to them, and when I say they are my friends, they are my friends. They 
wake up and put their pants on one leg at a time or grab their purse or 
what have you; and they are good people. But it is the leadership. That 
is the reason why the votes are extended.
  I have here, right here in my hand, it is called The House Rules and 
Manual of the 109th Congress. In this manual, I must add that it says, 
under rule 20, Mr. Speaker, and it is number 2 here, it talks about the 
fact that the maximum time for a recorded vote or quorum call by 
electronic device shall be 15 minutes.

                              {time}  2315

  Now, as I stand here as Carrie Meek's son, my mother, I guarantee you 
tomorrow when this vote comes up that the spirit of that rule will not 
prevail. We will be here for some time because they have to convince 
some of our friends in the majority to vote for the rule.
  We can talk about that a little bit because I think we need to share 
that with the Members, Mr. Speaker, of what the Rules Committee did 
tonight. I think we need to talk about that since it was in a dark room 
on the third floor. We are on the second floor now. It was on the third 
floor of this very building.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. While you are on the rule, about an hour ago, 
the Rules Committee reported a rule which are the directions that are 
given to the House for legislation that we consider each day. The Rules 
Committee gives us the parameters under which we can operate and act on 
each bill.
  So, the rule for tomorrow that has come out on a party-line vote for 
this budget reconciliation bill tomorrow, is called a closed rule. You 
may be asking, well, what is a closed rule, what does that mean? A lot 
of the terms we use in Washington are cryptic.
  A closed rule means that no one can offer any amendments to this 
bill. We will have, using the term that people have heard so often, an 
up-or-down vote on this budget reconciliation bill.
  A short time ago, I recall that one of the distinguished members of 
the Rules Committee was discussing with us how open the process is and 
how much input we as Democrats in the minority party have had in the 
process and how many amendments we have been able to get in and have 
considered.
  This document, this bill, that we are considering tomorrow is perhaps 
the most important piece of legislation which will have the most far-
reaching impact of almost anything that we are going to consider in 
this Congress: $844 million in food stamps, eliminating 300,000 people 
off of food stamp rolls,

[[Page H10139]]

cutting child care, $17.5 billion in financial assistance to college 
students. The list goes on and on, and the Republican leadership, 
because we have got to call it like it is, created a closed rule so 
that we cannot offer any changes to that bill tomorrow, none. That is 
the democracy.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. One of the things, among others, what we would try 
to do, as we try to reconcile the budget, is not give $70 billion in 
tax cuts that go primarily to the people who make more than half a 
million dollars a year.
  The whole idea of this whole thing was to somehow find in the budget 
$50 billion to pay for Katrina, and instead, they found the $50 billion 
to pay for Katrina supposedly, but they also gave $70 billion in tax 
cuts, which means their deficit, this is what is great about 
Washington, their deficit reduction package actually increases the 
deficit by $20 billion because they just cannot resist giving people 
who make more than $500,000 i.e., their campaign contributors, a tax 
cut.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Could I ask a question?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Sure.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I think it is always helpful for us to provide 
information to people who do not really know much about this process 
here. It is kind of arcane. Maybe you could help describe for people 
who are wondering about the process, we have to name each piece of 
legislation, so that it is descriptive for the membership.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Supposed to be. The words at the top are supposed 
to identify what is happening.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Ideally, it is actually supposed to define 
what we are doing.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. You would think a deficit reduction bill would 
reduce the deficit.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes, of course. The name of this legislation 
is the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. I am a freshman and I do not know 
the rules in that book as well as the two of you or as well as some of 
my senior colleagues. So I wonder if there is anything in the book, the 
rules book, that says you cannot be inaccurate or misleading.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Let us be a little more specific. Maybe the 30 
Something Working Group will offer an amendment to the House rules to 
say that a bill specifically called the Deficit Reduction Act.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Actually has to reduce the deficit.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Yeah.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Why would you want to do that?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Let us try.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. All right. Here is a perfect example of what we 
call the Potomac 2-Step. You have just outlined a perfect example. Some 
may say hoodwink. Others may say bamboozle. But here in Washington we 
call it Potomac 2-Step. It is a dance where, hey, I am going this way, 
you go that way, you swing your arms.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. They call it the bootleg: fake left, go around the 
other side.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Let me just tell you what they are doing.
  Presently, they would say it is reducing the deficit, but what they 
are not saying within another 2 weeks, we are going to give people that 
make over half a million dollars a year the biggest tax cut they have 
ever seen. One Member described it on that side as we are going to help 
the productive people here in the United States; we are going to help 
the productive people. So I guess that means, American worker, if you 
make between $34,000 and $54,000 and you get an $840 tax cut, you are 
not necessarily in that group of the half a million folks.
  I want you to go further on that chart, but just before we get too 
far away from what the Rules Committee did tonight on a party-line 
vote, you hear Members come to the floor and other Members say, oh, 
well, we are for fairness; we do not know why the Democrats will not 
offer their alternatives; they have nothing but complaints; it is 
almost un-American.
  I am going to tell you what is un-American, Mr. Speaker, and I am 
going to tell you what is limiting the voice of the Democratic side 
over here.
  The rule that was passed from the Rules Committee just moments ago in 
darkness, there was not a television camera in that room. When we start 
talking about the back halls of Congress, it is our job here in the 30 
Something Working Group, good or bad, we are supposed to expose what 
happens in the back halls of Congress.
  Let me just read this. This is not something that I printed. This is 
what the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) just pointed 
out on H.R. 4241, what they call the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, 
even though it is increasing the deficit by $20 billion and change. I 
did not put these in order.
  Number 1, closed rule. Closed rule means that we cannot even offer an 
amendment to this Act when it comes to the floor, democrat or 
Republican. Let me just keeping going here. This gets interesting.
  Two, provides 2 hours of debate in the House, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the 
Budget. That is where the Republican side gets two hours to talk about 
how good it is, the Democrats get 2 hours to talk about why we cannot 
offer anything to this budget, why are we cutting veteran benefits, why 
we are increasing student loan costs to students for our next 
generation of workers in this country, why can we not have more female 
engineers in this country, why are we putting what I call tax, they 
call fee, why are we putting additional tax on American families to 
educate their children.
  Three, waive all points of order against consideration of the bill. 
Well, goodness gracious.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. What does that mean?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. That means if you have a point of order to the 
Speaker, that is waived, you are out of order. What do you mean point 
of order? If something was found in the rule book tomorrow that 
violates the rules of this House and I want to make a point of order, 
you cannot make it because it has been waived by the Rules Committee.
  Number 4, provides that all amendments printed in the Rules Committee 
report accompanying the resolution shall be considered as adopted.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Without a vote?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Without a vote. Should be considered as adopted. 
That means it is already adopted. What are they meeting for? What is 
the 2 hours on both side? Why debate it? We did it because we are in 
the majority, and guess what, we have the power to do that. They are 
setting the rules. They think they are muzzling the Democratic side. 
They are muzzling the people that sent us up here to represent them. 
That is what they are doing. That is the reason why this stuff happens 
at night here.

  Number 5, this is not my order, Mr. Speaker. This is from the Rules 
Committee. Waive all points of order against provisions in the bill as 
amended. They have already, in their opinion, adopted this bill. When I 
say ``they,'' I am talking about the Republican majority. When we talk 
about power, when we talk about an abuse of power, Mr. Speaker, that is 
what we are talking about.
  I want to say it again, just in case someone missed it. This is not 
what we are doing, Mr. Speaker. This is what the Republican majority is 
doing on the Rules Committee.
  Number 6, provides one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Now, is that an opportunity for us to amend 
the bill or change it?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. No.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. What does that let us do?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. That is just an attempt by the individuals that 
have problems with this bill to recommit it back to committee. I mean, 
this is not something to change or improve or someone comes to the 
floor and say, you know, if you just did not do what you are doing to 
free and reduced lunch for children, poor children in my community, I 
just cannot vote for this because I just cannot close a clinic which is 
only open in my rural area once every 2 weeks and now this may very 
well close it; all these billions of dollars in cuts to the veterans 
assistance and health care and death benefit, I just cannot vote for it 
in good conscience. So that means that that cannot even happen.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Can I ask you another question on that point. 
In the time that you have been

[[Page H10140]]

here, which is 3 years now, has a motion to recommit ever passed out of 
the House of Representatives since you have been here?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. No, no. It does not happen.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So they never send a bill back to committee 
even if something may be wrong with it?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. No.
  Number 7, provides that notwithstanding the operation of the previous 
question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to a 
time designated by the Speaker. Now, that is the out in number 7, and I 
can tell you, Mr. Speaker, in no way do I want to see the American 
people go through what the majority wants them to go through if this 
bill passes hypothetically tomorrow.
  That allows the Republican majority to say, oh, the leadership, 
goodness, we could not get some of our Members to vote against their 
own constituents that sent them up here; we tried but it just could not 
happen because it was the wrong thing to do. They thought about it. 
Some slept on it. Some got calls from their veterans and from faith-
based organizations that do what they can do on behalf of those that do 
not have as much as others; those that were concerned about the effects 
on the environment that is in this budget; those that cared about 
children to have an education environment, Mr. Speaker, where you do 
not have kids on one end that had breakfast, lunch and dinner because 
their families were able to provide it versus those kids that could 
have been stricken by natural disaster or a father could have died or 
under this bill a single mother because we cut child enforcement 
dollars to help go after deadbeat parents that are not paying for it.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Can I say something. What we are trying to do here 
is move away from a country that says if you are born in the right 
neighborhood, with the right family, you are going to be fine, and if 
you are not born in the right neighborhood to the right family, the 
heck with you. That is what this is all about. I mean, if we have got 
to boil this down 30-Something-style and lay it out there, that is what 
it is. You cannot cut Medicaid. You cannot cut food stamps, foster 
care, child support enforcement, raise the fees on student loans.

                              {time}  2330

  What are we doing? This does not make any sense. We are a bit 
younger, on average, than most Members here, but this makes no sense. I 
do not know any other way to say it than this is crazy, what we are 
doing here. This makes no sense, at the same time we are giving half a 
million people, making half a million more here, huge tax cuts.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. It is not what we are doing, it is what the 
majority is doing.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. It is late, and I appreciate my colleague 
correcting me.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. It is not what we are doing.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. It is what we are fighting against.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. It is what we are fighting against. And guess 
what? Those that come to the floor, and I guarantee there will be some 
come to the floor, and someone will give them a piece of paper, and 
they will say, Okay, thank you, and they will run up here, grab the 
mike and they will say, Why do the Democrats not offer something?
  Hello? The Rules Committee has spoken. It is done. Period. Dot. Even 
if someone had a great idea, they cannot do it. And there is a history 
of this kind of abuse here in the House and muzzling individuals and 
people with great ideas that want to help this country. But, better 
yet, the rule.
  And this is America. This is not a Third World country. This is not a 
Communist country. This is America.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I want to elaborate on what my colleague is 
saying, because some people might think that this is unusual and that 
it is a rare occurrence that they would close a bill and not allow us 
to offer any amendments. This is just my first year, but I wanted to 
just check on what the Republican leadership's track record is in terms 
of allowing us the input that they say they so desperately want us to 
provide.
  There have been about 85 bills, as of last Thursday, which was 
November 3, 85 bills that we have considered on this floor that were 
amendable. There are lots of bills we consider that are under what is 
called the suspension calendar, and we vote those up or down. Those are 
the noncontroversial bills. But 85 bills.
  Of the 85 bills that were potentially amendable, 38 of them were 
given restrictive rules where there were severe limitations on the 
amendments that were allowed to be offered. Severe. Fifteen of those 
bills were closed, like the one that we are considering tomorrow, 
meaning no additional amendments were allowed. No amendments at all 
were allowed. Plus three additional closed rules that were included in 
another bill.
  Now, there have been, of the 85, 12 open rules, meaning anyone can 
offer an amendment, but 11 of those were appropriations bills, spending 
bills, which we always are allowed to offer amendments to.
  So what it boils down to, and 10 were conference reports and 10 were 
procedural. But what that boils down to is that since I was elected and 
have served in Congress 11 months, we have had one bill, one 
substantive bill, that had an open rule, one where we could offer any 
idea we wanted.
  Now, my colleague from Florida talked earlier about how we all put 
our pant legs on one at a time. And I wear pants and sometimes I wear 
skirts, and sometimes I wear pajamas. I might be bringing those 
tomorrow because we are not sure how long we are going to be here and 
how long they are going to hold that vote open until they get their 
way. But we were also all elected by the same number of people, or we 
certainly represent the same number of people, the same 633,000 people. 
But we are not all treated equally in this Chamber, because on our side 
of the aisle we are not allowed to provide the input that they say they 
want us to provide.
  I actually just want to, if you do not mind, tell a little story, 
because we should demonstrate what is going on here in this bill 
tomorrow. Gene Sperling, who was at one time President Clinton's top 
economic adviser, he compared this budget and the cutting in the budget 
to cutting only peanut butter. I will share this story with you. 
Imagine the following:
  The father of a financially stretched family decides to live it up. 
He leases three fully loaded Hummer H1s for the bargain price of $9,750 
a month, almost $10,000. As the family's financial situation 
deteriorates, the father calls the family together for a belt-
tightening discussion. He holds up a jar of Whole Foods chunky peanut 
butter and says, Do you realize we are spending $4.49 on this? We could 
be saving $2.04 if we bought Skippy Peanut Butter for only $2.45.
  His teenage son responds, like, Dad, man, why are you busting on us 
about two bucks on peanut butter when you are spending like almost 
$10,000 a month on cars?
  Then the father responds, Do not change the subject. We are talking 
about peanut butter.
  Well, that is essentially what the leadership is saying by giving tax 
cuts to millionaires and the greedy, their cronies, and cutting 
programs for veterans, children, and the poor who are the needy. They 
are basically saying, We need to talk about the peanut butter, that is 
all that matters to us.
  In some of the time we have left, we should let people know just 
exactly what the conscience vote is tomorrow, so that people know when 
we all go to sleep tonight just who is going to be able to wake up and 
look at themselves in the mirror and hold their head up high. We are 
being asked tomorrow to vote to cut $844 million from food stamps. They 
say there is fraud in the food stamp program and that we need to reduce 
waste.
  Well, I held up this picture earlier tonight, and I will hold it up 
again, because I think it is very descriptive. There is the picture of 
the 25,000 people who lined up in Broward County today to apply for 
food stamps after getting hit by Hurricane Wilma. They started lining 
up at 3 a.m. They did not line up for emergency funding.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Those are new people. Those are not people who were 
probably on food stamps.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. These are new people. The vast majority of

[[Page H10141]]

people in this line were applying for the first time.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And there are a lot of other people in the country 
because the poverty rate has gone so high.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And this does not come from FEMA money. This 
is not the emergency funding. This comes right out of the food stamp 
program.
  We have cuts in child care. We have cuts that would prevent us from 
ensuring that deadbeat dads are pursued. There is a $4.9 billion cut 
from child support programs. As a result, parents will receive $7.1 
billion, as the chart points out, less in child support over 5 years 
and $21.3 billion less over 10 years.
  There is a $577 million cut from foster care. Now, I know there are 
colleagues of mine on the other side of the aisle who are just 
bristling at that possibility. They do not want to make it so that 
families cannot take children in.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We are not kidding here either. If you are watching 
at home, you might think these guys are out there telling a story.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. This is real.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. This is real stuff. It is why we are up at 11:35 at 
night talking about it.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. My colleagues, it is not only what we are 
saying, it is what is in House Resolution 4241. You can go on line, 
Members that have not taken a look at that, they can look in the 
morning, read over it, have staff highlight exactly, verbatim, what we 
are talking about here.
  I know the reason why the Rules Committee, Republican majority, 
closed the rule. I know why they did it. Because on this side of the 
aisle we will do what we tried to do in the Budget Committee. We will 
replace the cuts that they made to veterans' services and health care. 
We will replace that.
  And guess what? Under the lights and in this Chamber they would have 
to go up, take my voting card out, they would have to go up to the 
machines that we have here and actually take out their voting card and 
put it in the machine and go on the record, on the board, saying that 
they are willing to cut child support enforcement.
  I wonder what their State attorneys are going to say and district 
attorneys are going to say when a single parent, nine times out of ten 
women, that are going to go into the State attorney's office and 
prosecutor's office and say, he ran out on me; he left me here with 
these four kids. I have not seen him and he has not given a dime 
towards child support. Can you help me?
  Yes, they will take their information. But you know what they will 
say? Ma'am, I am sorry, it is going to probably take 3 years because we 
have a backlog because of our friends in Congress. You need to call 
your Congressman because they cut the child enforcement money.
  But it gets worse, Mr. Speaker. The three of us were members of the 
State legislatures. Mr. Ryan was in the senate in Ohio, Ms. Wasserman 
Schultz and myself, we were in the senate in Florida and in the house. 
My colleague from Florida speaks of the fact that she is a freshman 
here, but her public service goes beyond mine. I have been here 11 
years, and I met her when I came into the house because she was already 
there a term before me.
  So what is going to happen when it gets to the State legislatures? 
What are they going to do, Mr. Speaker? They are going to make a cut, 
too, to child support enforcement.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. They will not have a choice.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. They will not have a choice because we handed it 
to them. We gave it to them.
  So the Republican majority once again uses this book. And the power 
that they have on the majority side to close the rule, the power the 
people gave to them, is to prevent us from saying, Mr. Speaker, I have 
an amendment at the desk that will replace the cuts that are made to 
veterans, that will replace the cuts made to child enforcement. Mr. 
Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk that will make sure that those 
oil companies that are celebrating historic record profits, that we not 
only talk about those record profits here in Congress, that we do 
something about it; and we make sure that those who cannot afford 
heating oil and LP gas this winter can receive a break on that. They 
stopped that from happening.

  So when you start talking about where are the Democrats, where are 
their ideas? Well, guess what? We are not going to tell you that last 
night at 10 p.m., while some of you all were home asleep, we got them 
good. We shut them down. We put forth a rule that they cannot even 
introduce their ideas. And you know why they did it? Because they might 
very well have lost some of their Members, who would have had to take 
this card out and put it in these machines behind these chairs and vote 
for their constituents and the American people.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. The American people did not give the Republican 
Party the power that they have to use it to suppress good ideas or to 
suppress other Americans' voices.
  So the question may be, as we are talking about the closed rule and 
all the parliamentary procedures used here to shut down Democrats, many 
people would be saying, Well, what would you offer?
  Well, a couple of things I can think of off the top of my head, one 
of the amendments we would offer on this floor is to strip the $16 
billion that we are giving right now to the oil companies in corporate 
welfare. We would take that back. The Democrats, Mr. Speaker, would 
offer an amendment to repeal the $16 billion.
  And the Democrats would offer an amendment on this floor tomorrow 
during the budget debate to pull back the prescription drug Medicare 
Part D and put in the bill a provision to allow the Secretary of Health 
and Human Services to negotiate down the drug prices.
  We would also put in there that we would allow reimportation to drive 
the costs down. We would save the American taxpayer, with just those 
two or three amendments tomorrow, billions and billions and billions of 
dollars. And probably, over the course of the next few years, we would 
be able to pay for Katrina and be able to invest in our students 
through the Pell Grant and the student loan, and be able to make sure 
that every child has adequate health care.
  That is what we would offer. So if you are sitting at home paying 
attention to this debate, those are a couple of the basic things the 
Democrats would do.
  I yield to my colleague.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I thank my colleague. And there is good news 
in all of this sadness. And that is the best word I can apply to this 
piece of garbage that we are going to consider tomorrow. There is good 
news, because the voters get it. They know this country should be 
turned around and moved in a new direction, and they sent a very strong 
message yesterday.
  We had a number of elections across this country yesterday, and in 
every single one that rose and fell on issues like these, who won? The 
Democrats won. We will have a Democratic governor of Virginia, we will 
have a Democratic governor of New Jersey. All eight initiatives in 
California that would have abused the process, abused democracy, that 
would have harmed people had they passed in California, which were 
initiated by Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, were repudiated 
by the voters of California. All eight were defeated.

                              {time}  2345

  So it is very clear that the American people are rejecting their 
agenda and want to go in a new direction.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We have the new ideas to take the country in a new 
direction and get away from this corruption and the cronyism of hiring 
friends to run major organizations like FEMA.
  How rotten is the system, how corrupt is a system that the Republican 
majority will not go to the wealthiest people, will not go to the oil 
companies or the pharmaceutical companies to pay for Hurricane Katrina 
or invest in the student aid and those kinds of things because they 
need the money for their campaign contributions. That is a corrupt 
system. That is what we want to change.
  We want to move away from that and allow this body to once again 
become the independent body that it should be, that the Founding 
Fathers wrote up Article I, Section 1 in the Constitution providing the 
oversight for the executive branch, like the Republican majority has 
shown they know how to do.

[[Page H10142]]

They did not do it for a great reason. They did it to get into the 
personal life of President Clinton.
  But now we have public violations, violations of the public trust 
through CIA leaks, leaks of CIA prisons, and all of this nonsense that 
has been going on. Let us restore some integrity back to this place and 
get rid of the three C's: corruption, cronyism, and the lack of 
competence.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I want to read Point No. 4. This 
paper is still a little warm because they just carried out this act. It 
states: ``Provide that the amendment printed in the Rules Committee 
report accompanying the resolution shall be considered as adopted.''
  Why come to the floor tomorrow? We cannot offer an amendment.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. People are going to make career decisions tomorrow.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Yes, that is the bottom line. Some Member is 
going to make a career decision tomorrow because somebody told him to 
vote for something that they did not want to vote for in the first 
place.
  We are going to make the right decisions, decisions on behalf of the 
American people. May the blocks fall where they may. There is going to 
be a difference between the Members and the followers in this Chamber. 
It is important that we let the American people know who is standing 
for them.
  So when Ms. Wasserman Schultz talks about when judgment day comes 
every 2 years, when Democrats, Republicans and the one Independent we 
have, when people go to make their decision, I want them to think about 
the fact that they should vote principle over party. Do not go for, in 
the last minute what we call in some areas of this country, the okie-
doke. Hey, I am strong on terror. I am with the trips. We have Members 
flying to Iraq. Thank you for fighting for our country; but do not talk 
to me when you become a veteran. I am just fresh off a vote cutting 
your future benefits. But, hey, I am with you all of the way. But as 
long as you stay enlisted, we stay with you.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to give the Web site out, but I wanted to make 
that point so people remember what happened this November. They came to 
the floor and came willing to vote for a budget that was unjust.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, the Web site is 
30SomethingD[email protected]. Send an e-mail recommendation to the 
Members of this body tomorrow. And bring your PJ pants. We may be here 
into the wee hours of the morning. We want to apologize in advance to 
the veterans organizations we are supposed to be at Friday morning for 
speaking engagements because we may be here voting on this budget.

                          ____________________