[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 33 (Tuesday, February 27, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H1952-H1959]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     THE 30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is recognized 
for 60 minutes.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to address the 
House.
  And to my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle, it sounds 
like our past colleague Mr. Snyder and his family served our country 
well, and we appreciate his contributions to our country in serving in 
public service.

[[Page H1953]]

  Mr. Speaker, as you know, this is the first night of business, 
returning back from the Presidents Day break. Before we left we had a 
week-long debate on the question of Iraq, a nonbinding resolution 
opposing the troop escalation that the President has put forth at this 
time.
  And the discussion continues, Mr. Speaker, as we start, Democrats and 
Republicans, molding out the direction that we have to head in in this 
country. The American people, Mr. Speaker, voted for change and a new 
direction. And to bring about that kind of change and new direction, 
there are going to have to be some votes here on this floor that are 
going to speak volumes back home of how we are going to proceed from 
this point on and how we are going to assist our men and women in 
harm's way and how we are going to deal with this issue in Iraq and in 
Afghanistan and other domestic issues that we have here.
  I am very pleased to not only share with the Members, Mr. Speaker, 
but also with the American people the fact that 246 Members of the 
House voted in the affirmative to disagree with the President as it 
relates to the recent troop escalation of some 20,000 combat troops and 
anywhere from 3,000 to 4,000 support personnel being sent to Iraq, 
which was announced by the President on January 10 of this year.

                              {time}  2145

  I think it is very, very important to note that that was a nonbinding 
resolution. Even though it was nonbinding, it really set the course for 
the Congress to play a role.
  I think the reason why we are in the majority, and when I say ``we,'' 
the Democrats are in the majority right now, Mr. Speaker, is not the 
fact that our message was better than the Republican message in the 
last election. I think the American people were counting on change and 
heading in a new direction.
  So it is important, and I am encouraging the Members in a bipartisan 
way, that we work very hard to give the American people what they want 
and to give the men and women in uniform what they need. I think that 
is a Congress having oversight hearings; a Congress debating the issues 
as it relates to troop readiness; a Congress that is willing to take 
the tough votes when they need to be taken; to be able to provide the 
kind of leadership from the congressional oversight end.
  The President is the commander-in-chief. That is outlined in the 
Constitution. No one is really trying to bother that or hinder that. We 
just want to make sure that the troops have what they need when they go 
into harm's way, need it be Iraq or Afghanistan.
  I mentioned a little earlier in my talk about readiness. I think it 
is important that we identify this, because it is used a lot here on 
the floor. Being a member of the Armed Services Committee and having 
had an opportunity to travel to Iraq twice, and looking forward to 
going back soon and going to Afghanistan and other areas where we have 
a military presence, readiness is very, very important.
  Readiness is almost like if you have an illness and you are going in 
for a major operation, you want to make sure that that doctor has what 
he or she needs to be able to carry out your procedure.
  I think it is important as we look at our National Guard and we look 
at our Reservists and we look at our active duty that they have what 
they need to carry out the mission if they are sent to Iraq. You can't 
go unless you have up-armored Humvees that are going to match the 
mission. You should not go and we should not send them if they don't 
have the Kevlar vests that they need. They should not go and we should 
not send them if they don't have the kind of backing that they need 
from a support standpoint that is trained and ready for the mission in 
Baghdad, need it be door-to-door searches, need it be guerilla warfare, 
need it be the general equipment one may need to carry out that 
mission.
  There is nothing wrong with the word ``readiness.'' I put it in the 
category, Mr. Speaker, of responsibility. I think it is important. I 
think it is irresponsible for us to send men and women into harm's way 
without the necessary tools that they need.
  Now, there are some Members that are saying, well, why do you have 
Members concerned? A colonel told us or the President told us or I read 
somewhere in a news release or I saw on the news that they have 
everything they need, and why would we send them over there in the 
first place? We all have their best interests at heart.
  I am going to share with Members, Mr. Speaker, that being a member of 
the Armed Services Committee in the last two Congresses and this 
Congress too, I have seen the Secretary of Defense say they have what 
they need. ``Anything the troops need, we will give it to them.'' And 
later I will pick up a news account that they don't have what they 
need, or go to Walter Reed and talk to a soldier that ended up being 
blown up in a Humvee because of an improvised explosive device, because 
that Humvee did not have the up-armor that it needed. It is the total 
opposite of what I hear here on Capitol Hill and what I have seen at 
Walter Reed.
  Let's take Walter Reed out. I have gone to Germany, Mr. Speaker. I 
have seen service men and women without legs. They didn't have what 
they needed. We were told they had what they needed, but they didn't 
have it.
  Just 2 weeks ago, last week during the debate, I think it was on 
Tuesday or Wednesday, I was at the White House for a meeting and we had 
an opportunity to ask the President questions and I had an opportunity 
to ask the President a question. And I shared with the President, we 
talked the nonbinding resolution. The President agreed he thought that 
it would pass here on the floor because the votes were there. He has 
people that are counting these votes.
  I said, ``Mr. President, I think it is important as we look at this 
as being a nonbinding resolution, there will be a binding resolution or 
a binding supplemental, emergency supplemental for the war in Iraq and 
Afghanistan, and there will be language in there, and you shouldn't 
have a problem with it, to say that we should not send the troops 
unless they are ready. I am not talking about mentally, I am talking 
about having the equipment they need to carry out the mission and not 
find themselves in harm's way without having the kind of backing that 
they need to be able to carry out the mission once again.''
  Of course, the President came back in a very roaring voice saying, 
``Kendrick, do you believe that I would send men and women into harm's 
way? I hear about the funerals. I write the letters and I call the 
families. You believe that I would do that?''
  I don't believe that the President would do that. But let me just 
share this with you: It has happened, and I think it is important that 
we realize that it is happening.
  Yes, if I am talking to a friend of mine and they are saying, well, 
you know, I know there have been reports of the new car that I bought, 
that it has some sort of problem with the engine that has come out in 
the auto report or what have you, but I am going to be okay regardless.
  Maybe it is not the best analogy that I can come up with at this 
point, but we have been told that the troops have what they need, we 
have been told they are ready for the mission that they are being sent 
to, and we found out otherwise later.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, it gives me no pleasure, and Members, it gives me 
no pleasure, we are at 3,154 men and women in uniform that are dead 
now. We appreciate their contributions to our country and we appreciate 
the way that they have applied themselves on behalf of what we sent 
them over to do. But I will tell you standing here as a Member of 
Congress, that some of these deaths could have been prevented if they 
had what they needed.
  Now, Members can go back and forth on how you feel about leadering 
up, manning up and womaning up to be able to do what you need to do as 
a Member of Congress to fight on behalf of these individuals. I am not 
questioning anyone's patriotism. I am not questioning anyone's 
integrity. I am not even questioning any Member of Congress' will or 
desire to make sure that we give the troops what they need.
  I believe we all are well-intended. But we have to make sure that 
when that man or woman leaves their family on a tarmac, need it be at 
an active duty military camp or at a commercial airport where you have 
Reserve and

[[Page H1954]]

National Guard individuals that are leaving to go into harm's way, it 
is our duty and our responsibility as Members of Congress that have 
oversight of the taxpayer dollars to make sure, even though someone has 
said it is going to be okay, but to make sure that they have what they 
need. It is that simple.
  So, I was not shocked, Mr. Speaker, by seeing the bipartisan vote 
before we left on President's break. I am definitely not a prophet and 
I am not a psychic, but I knew, based on the message from the American 
people, Democrats and Republicans, I am not just talking about proud 
Democrats kind of got together and said hey, let's do this. We don't 
have 246 Members here in this House on the majority right now, so it 
took 17 Republicans to come along with Democrats or to be with 
Democrats or to be with individuals that understood that message last 
November from the American people.
  As far as I am concerned, in the 30-something Working Group, we don't 
focus on issues, ``let's go to the floor and make sure we gain a 
greater majority.'' Not when it comes to national security. Not when it 
comes to the very heartbeats and the way of life of those individuals 
that put their lives on the line and those that have put their lives on 
the line in the past, and I am going to talk about them a little later, 
Mr. Speaker.
  You don't play politics with that. That is national security. That is 
someone's daddy, that is someone's mother, that is someone's son, that 
is someone's daughter that may not come home because someone told 
someone else in Washington, D.C. that it was going to be okay.
  Now, there are a lot of folks around here editorializing on what Mr. 
Murtha is talking about from Pennsylvania, who is an outstanding Member 
of the Congress and also happens to be the chairman of the Defense 
Appropriations subcommittee.

  I think it is important that we look at someone who is a decorated 
Marine, that has fought for us to salute one flag, who served in 
Congress double digit years, that still is willing to serve this 
country. We have someone that is willing to say I voted for the war, as 
Mr. Murtha did, and to say that I have been to Iraq, I have had 
oversight hearings, and I must add that he has had more oversight 
hearings since this Congress has been active in the last 2 months than 
they had in the entire 109th Congress with 2 years combined and then 
some.
  And that the committee is hard at work to make sure that when those 
family members look at those men and women that are going into harm's 
way, that they know, not maybe, not, well, you know, I am trying to get 
there.
  I heard what the President said. I heard what the Secretary of 
Defense said. I even heard a member of the brass say it. When they go 
out on patrol, and I am not a military person and I am not going to 
represent myself as someone who has served in uniform. I have just been 
a State trooper and I have been an elected official for 13 years, and I 
have served here in this Congress for the last 4 years and a couple of 
months. And I have been federalized by the people that elected me from 
the Seventeenth Congressional District.
  I will tell you this: I know what my job is, and I know what Mr. 
Murtha's job is, and I know what the job of all of the Members of 
Congress, including the Members of the Senate and the President of the 
United States and the people that he appoints, that we need to make 
sure, we need to make sure beyond 100 percent, we need to make sure 160 
percent, if we can, 200 percent, that those men and women that go into 
war, that their chance to come back to this country the way they left 
is our paramount duty.
  So, I am not really tied up in a debate, Mr. Speaker, and I don't 
think here on this side of the aisle and even some of the Members on 
the other side of the aisle are tied up in the debate about the details 
of the obvious.
  The obvious is, Mr. Speaker, the fact that the troops should have 
what they need when they go into harm's way. Why are we even talking 
about that? Why are some Members objecting to that being in the 
emergency supplemental, to say that they should have what they need to 
go into war? If it wasn't so serious, it would be funny. So I think the 
Members, we need to kind of put that to the side and say that there are 
other issues that we have to deal with.
  Profiteering of the war, reams and reams of paper, Inspector General 
reports of how U.S. contractors have been fleecing of the U.S. taxpayer 
dollar. Our paramount, one of our fiscal paramount responsibilities is 
to make sure that the Federal tax dollar is not only appropriated, but 
disseminated in the right way to make sure that ultimate accountability 
is paramount once again.
  So I am excited about what is happening here, Mr. Speaker, I am 
excited about the debate that is taking place, and I am excited about 
the forward progress that we are making in that area.
  I just want to address one more thing before I turn it over to my 
colleague, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
  Mr. Speaker, I was very disturbed last week and have been disturbed, 
and here in the 30-Something Working Group, we have been talking quite 
a bit about our veterans. Now, I mentioned that a little earlier 
because the veterans, we say we are the 30-something Working Group. A 
lot of those veterans are 30-something now. Many of them are even 20-
something, because of their service. Some of them are 40 and 50-
something. And they are coming back.
  In the last Congress, in the 109th and 108th, those were the only two 
Congresses I can account for, because beyond that it was my mother 
serving here, and I am pretty sure that I can get a good account from 
her about what happened or I can research in the Congressional Record, 
we have Members coming to the floor chest-beating, ``Oh, I support the 
men and women in uniform and our veterans, and I am going to be in the 
veterans parade and I am going to wave and carry on and I am going to 
let them know that I love them.''
  Well, let me just say this: In the 108th and the 109th Congresses, 
veteran benefits were cut, period. They were cut. And as we continue to 
talk about it, as we continue to dissect the President's budget, this 
document here, as we continue to dissect this budget here, find out 
what is in it and what is not in it, what is going to be given to the 
American people and what is going to be taken away, we are going to 
find out where this administration falls and the old majority in this 
House falls on the issue of veterans.

                              {time}  2200

  Now, I can speak, and I know we can speak, in a very bold voice when 
we talk about our commitment to veterans. I have a veterans hospital in 
my district. I have actually two. When I go and visit, I look at those 
men and women. They could have served back in Korea, World War II. I 
even met a gentleman who served in Grenada, Haiti, 82nd Airborne. You 
have these individuals that are there. Vietnam, that are there. Some 
folks may not know that they served, but we know they served.
  Our responsibility in Congress is not to just carry on and talk about 
how we support the men and women in uniform and those who have served, 
and we honor them and we appreciate them; but I think it is important 
that we speak with our dollars and our commitment here as Members of 
Congress.
  In January of 2003, the Bush administration cuts off veterans health 
care for 164,000 veterans. That is on our Web site.
  March 2003, the Republican budget cuts $14 billion from veterans 
health care. That was passed by Congress with 199 Democrats voting 
against that measure of cutting the $14 billion.
  In March 2004, the Republican budget shortchanged veterans health 
care again by $1.5 billion. That was passed by the Congress, 201 
Democrats voting against that measure.
  March 2005, President Bush's budget shortchanges veterans health care 
again by more than $2 billion. Again, 201 Democrats voted against that. 
This was House Resolution 95. The vote number was 98.
  In the 30-Something Working Group, we actually pull information from 
the Congressional Record. I think it is important that Members and the 
American people realize that.
  Again, November 2005, the Bush administration as it relates to the 
shortfall, Democrats fought that summer to be able to get back the $2.7 
billion that was taken out. And we have a member

[[Page H1955]]

of the Appropriations Committee here, but in the last continuing 
resolution because the Republicans did not do their job, Mr. Speaker, 
in making sure that the work was done when the Democratic Congress took 
over, they couldn't get all of the bills passed. They just kept punting 
down the street. In our continuing resolution, we retooled Members' 
projects and other nonissues that weren't a priority because of the 
thirst that veterans have and the Department of Veterans has to provide 
the services for our men and women that serve. The Democrats increased 
the VA health care budget by $3.6 billion in a joint funding 
resolution. I say all of that to indicate it is important that we do 
this.
  One last point. While we were on break, The Washington Post: 
``Soldiers face neglect and frustration at Army top medical facility'' 
here in Washington, D.C., Walter Reed Hospital. This is a Washington 
Post article, Sunday, February 18, 2007. It was dropped here on my 
doorstep in Washington, D.C. I read this, and it was a follow-up 
article. I think it is important that the American people and Members 
of Congress pay close attention to what is happening.
  You have patients and outpatients that are saying that Walter Reed, 
they are encountering a messy bureaucratic battlefield that reminds 
them of the real one that they faced overseas.
  It also talks in this article about rats and mice and dead insects in 
this hospital. Smells and carpet stains.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, our job, yes, we say we support the troops. Yes, 
we say we support veterans. We are supposed to say that. But when we 
come here and we take our voting card out and we go to these 
committees, we have to make sure that we follow through on what we say.
  So I am excited by the fact that by reading everything that I have 
read about what has happened in the last two Congresses and beyond, 
that we have already put $3.6 billion, and we haven't had a full cycle 
to be able to even dissect the budget and to appropriate. So saying 
that, I want to pass it over to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz), a good friend of mine. I am glad she is here to 
shed light on our message here tonight.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you so much. It is a pleasure to join my 
30-something colleagues, Mr. Meek and Mr. Murphy.
  Mr. Meek, you started talking about the travesty that was revealed by 
The Washington Post just before last weekend about what is going on at 
Walter Reed Medical Center and the campus and its facilities.
  I had the privilege of going to visit our men and women that are at 
Walter Reed who have come back from Iraq injured. Almost every soldier 
I met with was an amputee and went through a devastating experience, 
devastating injury. But the ward that they take you through, like this 
article says, is spit-polished and brand-spanking clean. There is not a 
shadow of what is described in this third-party validator, which is how 
we refer to our information that we bring out here to demonstrate the 
facts.
  I want to read just a paragraph from the article. I want to highlight 
some of the things, and we have been joined by our good friend Mr. 
Altmire from Pennsylvania.
  This article hit me like a ton of bricks: ``Life beyond the hospital 
bed,'' and this is what is going on at Walter Reed that is not what 
they show us as Members of Congress and that they show the President 
and Vice President about what is going on at Walter Reed. ``Life beyond 
the hospital bed is a frustrating mountain of paperwork. The typical 
soldier is required to file 22 documents with eight different commands, 
most of them off post, to enter and exit the medical processing world, 
according to government investigators. Sixteen different information 
systems are used to process the forms, but few of them can communicate 
with one another. The Army's three personnel databases cannot read each 
other's files and can't interact with the separate pay system or the 
medical record keeping databases. The disappearance of necessary forms 
and records is the most common reason soldiers languish at Walter Reed 
longer than they should,'' and it goes on.
  That is just unbelievable. A mountain of red tape and bureaucracy is 
what our troops come back to the United States to and have to deal 
with. I thought we well established after 9/11 that interoperability 
and communication between systems was an obstacle that was intolerable.
  How could we allow this to happen and just let our veterans, who 
fought for us so valiantly, and the analogy I will make is while our 
troops might not come home, and thank good they are not coming home to 
the same reaction as our Vietnam veterans came home to, how is this not 
as bad? It is actually worse, in a way, because instead of just having 
to suffer the wrath of their fellow Americans, which was a travesty and 
certainly hurtful and harmful, instead they come home and suffer the 
wrath of their government, the benign wrath of their government. 
``Benign'' meaning not specifically intended to harm, but it is like 
death by a thousand cuts.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. If the gentlelady would yield for a 
moment, let us also think about what this message is to those that 
would sign up for this volunteer military force being sent to defend 
our country overseas. Not only is this unconscionable to those who have 
sacrificed everything to fight for this country in Afghanistan and 
Iraq, but think about those who we are asking to join the Armed Forces. 
We don't have a draft any more, and many people are thankful for that. 
We rely on the decisions by courageous men and women across this 
country to join voluntarily our Armed Forces.
  So when they see people coming back from these wars, being treated 
without the basic dignity that any of us would expect those men and 
women to be treated with, I would think, I hope it doesn't, but I would 
think it might give pause to those that would join our military.
  So I think of this from a point of conscience deep inside me, and I 
also think about it from a standpoint of national security. What kind 
of signal are we sending to those who are going to be the next 
generation of troops when this is how we treat them when they come 
back.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. That is a very important and valid 
point.
  I want to read a quote, and that quote is this: ``So let's get 
something straight right now. To point out that our military has been 
overextended, taken for granted and neglected, that is no criticism of 
the military, that is a criticism of the President and Vice President 
and their record of neglect.''
  Who do you think said that? I will tell you who said that, George W. 
Bush, as a candidate, said that on November 3, 2000, in an interview on 
CNN.
  I think it is pretty clear that he was right almost 7 years ago, and 
it is just sad that he didn't mean it. It is sad that he didn't 
actually do anything more than say those words instead of taking to 
heart what he supposedly believed at the time and making sure that it 
didn't happen when he became President.
  Clearly Walter Reed, the lack of body armor and preparation and 
training that we are sending, that we have been sending and he was 
willing to send our troops over to Iraq and Afghanistan without, is 
clearly still something that he is willing to do. Unfortunately, all 
the President has been is a candidate who spews words with really not 
too much meaning behind them. It looks like Mr. Altmire would like to 
say something.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. I thank the gentlewoman from Florida and the 30-
something Working Group.
  I was in my office doing some work after the district work period, 
and I heard the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) speaking on veterans 
and the problems at Walter Reed. I had to come down here and join in 
the conversation, and I appreciate your offer to do so.
  I want to tell you about a few things that happened in my district 
back home. I had several meetings with organizers and folks in the 
veterans community in my district. I toured a VA hospital that is 
undergoing a major expansion. As we were doing this throughout the week 
last week, the articles from The Washington Post about what was 
happening at Walter Reed appeared.
  I have to tell you that the veterans community in my district, and I 
am sure in other districts around the country, my veterans were 
outraged at what was happening there because

[[Page H1956]]

there has been a lot of talk during the debate on Iraq and other forums 
that certain individuals are not supporting the troops and not 
displaying the right commitment to the troops, and there is a partisan 
affiliation with that. But I want to tell you, we have a situation 
taking place at Walter Reed where we have veterans returning from Iraq 
and from Afghanistan, as has been pointed out, with severe injuries. 
These are 19 and 20 year olds, with severe, long-term, lifelong 
injuries. These are the people that we are talking about when we are 
having the debate on Iraq and Afghanistan and who is supporting the 
troops and who is not.
  I would leave it to others to determine who is at fault here. That is 
not what this is all about. What this is about is protecting our 
veterans and finding a way to improve the system.
  I have to say I shared the outrage of the veterans in my communities 
when I heard about these articles because these are the people that are 
fighting for us overseas that are in harm's way, and the situation in 
Iraq and Afghanistan is going to be the subject of another debate 
coming up on funding and we are going to hear some rhetoric thrown 
around I am sure on this floor and other places about support of our 
troops and who has been supportive of our troops.
  As the gentlewoman from Florida knows, during the debate on the 
budget, the continuation resolution, I was one who pushed very hard for 
increased funding for our Nation's veterans. I want to say that our 
leadership was able to put in $3.6 billion in funding increases for the 
VA health system. I have said many times, and I will say it here again 
tonight, Mr. Speaker, that I will never support a budget bill that does 
not fund the VA health system to maintain the current level of services 
every year that that budget funds.

                              {time}  2215

  They have been neglected for far too long, and we have seen what has 
happened at Walter Reed. We have seen the situation as outlined in 
great detail, and I do want to commend The Washington Post for the job 
that they did in putting forward these facts because these are things 
that needed to be known.
  We have a backlog in the VA of 400,000 cases. A 400,000-case backlog 
in the VA health care system. Mr. Speaker, that is just unacceptable in 
this time.
  So I will yield back, but I did want to say that I was in my office, 
and I just could not resist the opportunity to come down one more time 
and say that I share the frustration of the Members here, the 30-
something Working Group, on this issue because I personally am a little 
bit tired of the rhetoric that certain people are not supporting the 
troops. I agree that there are people who are not supporting the 
troops, and I will leave it to others to determine who that is, but I 
do not think that that has a place in the debate when we have a 
situation at Walter Reed that has been outlined. We have a budget 
situation where we have not funded our veterans as we should have in 
past years, but we are going to make up for it with this year's budget 
and continuing budgets.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Altmire. Your 
veterans in your district and veterans across this country have you to 
thank, along with others, that you helped rally to the cause to make 
sure that the continuing resolution that we passed here, which is 
effectively the Act that keeps the government operating, that provides 
the resources to different agencies, including the Veterans 
Administration, you made sure that that bill had the proper resources 
in it for our veterans.
  Here is the good news. We are talking about what is past and we also 
have to talk about the prologue as well. A new sheriff is in town, and 
the good news for veterans and for the American people is that we are 
going to make those investments in veterans health care. We are going 
to change things in this Congress. Mr. Altmire and I ran in part to 
make those changes, and Mr. Meek and Ms. Wasserman Schultz stood up 
here night after night after night making the case for that change.
  If the American people spoke out about many things, one of them 
certainly was that part of our change in foreign policy had to be doing 
justice to those veterans. So I hope that when people hear us talk 
about some of the bad things happening within our veterans system here, 
they understand that we are only saying it because we are part of the 
movement which is going to change that.
  The Disabled Veterans of America were in my office today, and they 
shared with me a pretty remarkable statistic, and I hope I get it 
right. In previous foreign conflicts, the ratio of those killed to 
those that were wounded in battle was 3 to 1 wounded to killed in 
action. In this conflict, it is 16 to 1. Now, that is great news, that 
we have made advances in protection for our soldiers, in armor, in the 
ability of our medical professionals to intervene on the battlefield 
that we are saving that many lives. It is a tragedy that one is lost, 
never mind the 3,000.
  The stress, though, that that puts on our system is a great one. We 
have more and more wounded, more severely wounded coming into our 
hospitals, and it means that we have to step up to meet that new 
obligation. We are so lucky to have people coming back that can still 
go on to lead productive lives, but only if we provide them with those 
resources.
  The other story that they told me was of the number of young soldiers 
just back from this war who are ending up in in-patient care in our 
State veterans hospitals, those that have been afflicted not just by 
the physical wounds, but by the mental wounds as well.
  Our obligation has to be not just to treat the broken bones, the 
damaged bodies, but also to the mental stress that these brave men and 
women have come back with.
  I just want to talk for a minute about who we are talking about here, 
because we have fought previous battles in a very different way. We 
have relied largely on our enlisted men and women to fight these wars, 
and I think we need to remember who we are asking to go over to Iraq 
and to Afghanistan to fight because no longer is it just our enlisted 
men.
  We are treating our National Guard basically like they are our normal 
Army today. Sometimes we forget that. It is good we are the 30-
something Working Group here because sometimes young people that have 
only seen this conflict think that that is how things are, that the 
National Guard and the Reserve are sort of like everybody else and they 
get sent over there, and that is what they signed up for. Well, that is 
not what they signed up for. That is not how we have conducted our 
military interventions in the past.
  We have zero active duty or Reserve brigades in the United States 
right now that are considered combat ready. We have 84,000 members of 
the National Guard and Reserve that have been deployed two times or 
more since 2001. The average mobilization for a Reserve or National 
Guard member is 18 months, and now, as we are learning that the 
President is once again going to rely on National Guard forces to be 
part of this new escalation in Iraq, we are finding out that these 
forces, as they get ready in their hometowns and their home States, are 
not even close to combat ready in terms of the equipment they need.
  The Oklahoma National Guard reports that one-third of their members 
do not have the M-4 rifles.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. On that point, just to focus on the National 
Guard and how correct you are about how they are being treated versus 
what they signed up for, there are now 14,000 National Guard troops 
being deployed earlier than they were originally scheduled to meet the 
demands of the President's proposed plans to escalate the war.
  National Guard and Army units are being called up sooner than 
previously scheduled, and that is even though some of these units do 
not have the equipment that they need. They do not have the training, 
and some of them are having to go over there foregoing the training.
  Mr. Meek and I are going to be meeting with our general, who is in 
charge of our National Guard in Florida very soon. I just saw the 
request today, and I am looking forward to meeting with him. I met with 
him in my district in Florida as well last year, and the conversations 
that I have had with him and with others about the condition of the 
equipment, not just the condition of the equipment that is going over

[[Page H1957]]

there, but what happens to the equipment once it comes back because we 
are not replacing the equipment and sending them new equipment after it 
has been through 5, 6 years of an Iraq War.
  So the equipment that they are working on and that they are utilizing 
has been through war literally. I mean, we are not making sure that 
they have the equipment that they need. We are sending them over there 
two, three and four times now.
  When I went to Walter Reed a couple of weeks ago, every single guy I 
met had been through three tours, three. One of the guys I met, his 
little boy was there, and literally his dad had been on three tours. 
His little boy was six, which means that this dad missed half of his 
child's life already, half. I mean, that is just inexcusable. That is 
not what our volunteers sign up for. I mean, even if you signed up for 
the regular standing Army, it is unreasonable to expect that they would 
have to have that kind of pressure, physical, mental, emotional 
pressure put on them as well as their families, especially in the 
middle of the situation in a war that we are involved in under dubious 
circumstances to begin with.
  I do not know if Mr. Meek wants to jump in here now, but he is still 
sitting so I imagine not. So I will go back to Mr. Murphy.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. We are talking about the best of the best. 
If anyone was able to operate and achieve under the strain, it is the 
men and women in our Armed Forces, and so we expect a lot of them 
because we know the training they have been through. We know the kind 
of people they are, but we have asked so much of them that we can ask 
very little more.
  We do differentiate at some level between our enlisted men and our 
National Guard and Reserve troops, and I think it is appropriate 
because when you are talking about them, you are talking about ripping 
somebody out of a family, out of a community.
  These are not just fathers and mothers. These are small businessmen. 
These are employees. These are employers. These are members of the PTA. 
These are members of the Elks Club. These are people who hold 
communities together. That is the type of people that our members of 
the Armed Forces are. Those people that sign up for the Reserve and 
National Guard do that because they have this commitment to their 
community, and it does not end with their commitment to their military 
service. They are part of the community in ways that a lot of other 
people are not.
  So when you talk about bringing people out two or three times to 
serve in the Reserve and National Guard, you are breaking up families 
and communities. That is why we had an enlisted service.
  I think one of the discussions that we will have going forward, and 
one that I think will be bipartisan agreement on, as there has been 
with most everything we have done here, is that we need to have an 
honest conversation about increasing the troop strength of our 
military, increasing numbers of troops that are enlisted and doing this 
as a permanent job, because it has gotten to the end of the limit of a 
lot of the people who are serving in our National Guard and our 
Reserve.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. I would add to that, the gentleman from Connecticut has 
eloquently outlined the types of people that we are talking about, that 
find themselves in this situation in our veterans hospitals. We are 
talking about people who really are American heroes. These are the best 
and brightest of our society. These are people who have left their 
families, as the gentlewoman from Florida has outlined. They have left 
their children. They are taking three, sometimes more, four tours, and 
they come back home.
  They find themselves in a military hospital. They find themselves 
backlogged on waiting lists. It takes 6 months to 2 years to access 
your health benefits at the VA. This is shameful treatment for people 
who are our heroes in this country. We need to have a national 
commitment to supporting our veterans.
  These are people who put their lives on the line for us. These are 
people who have left their family, as we have talked about, and we have 
had a situation in recent years where we had not given them the help 
that they need on the VA health side. We have made a commitment in the 
new Congress that we are going to make up for that as we have talked 
about.
  But I do want to make clear that everyone in this House realizes, 
both Republican and Democrat, that these are the heroes of our society. 
Nobody is going to argue with that. These are folks that we applaud 
them for their efforts. We thank them and we cannot show our gratitude 
in any more forceful way than to give them the funding that they need 
when they come back home and find themselves in a VA health care 
facility or receiving treatment at the veterans facility, even on an 
outpatient basis.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I want to follow up on what you are saying and 
emphasize and demonstrate what we are doing to our best, and I do mean 
doing to our best and brightest once they have come back. You have been 
an eloquent champion of our veterans.
  I think it is important to recall a private conversation that you and 
I had on the floor during the run-up to the adoption of the 
supplemental. It happens that I am a member of the whip team, and you 
were my assignment that day. I had an opportunity to talk to you about 
whether we could count on your support for the supplemental and how 
important it was.
  Your answer, which was the appropriate answer, was, well, Debbie, the 
answer is no, unless you can assure me that there was an increase for 
veterans health care. Because at that moment, I could not assure you 
because I did not have the information at my fingertips, I had to get 
back to you and was proud to be able to report that we did provide a 
significant increase that we were able to bump up beyond the continuing 
resolution significantly the health care we are providing to our 
veterans. But it is to your constituents' credit and the veterans that 
you represent that you do that.
  But let us just go through some facts that we know. The percentage of 
Army servicemembers receiving medical retirement and permanent 
disability benefits back in 2001 was 10 percent. The percentage of the 
same Army servicemembers receiving medical retirement and permanent 
disability benefits in 2005 down to 3 percent. Army Reservists 
receiving medical retirement and permanent disability in 2001, 16 
percent; same group in 2005, 5 percent.
  Let us go to the case backlog at the Veterans Administration on new 
benefit claims in fiscal year 2006. 400,000-case backup. This is from 
the Army Times, third party validator. Average length of time veterans 
wait before receiving monthly benefits, 6 months to 2 years. That was 
in the Los Angeles Times.
  The number of soldiers at Walter Reed navigating the medical and 
physical evaluation process since 2001 has doubled. The average length 
of time it takes for Army soldiers to convalesce and go through the 
military medical and physical evaluations, nine to 15\1/2\ months.

                              {time}  2230

  The increase in the Army's physical disability caseload since 2001, 
80 percent. The number of veterans from the global war on terror 
expected to enter the military and veterans health care systems in the 
coming years, 700,000. And I will just read the quote again from 
Candidate Bush: ``So let's get something straight right now. To point 
out that our military has been overextended, taken for granted, and 
neglected, that's no criticism of the military; that is the criticism 
of a President and a Vice President and their record of neglect.''
  Well, it sure is. And these statistics from the time that this 
President has been in the office are evidence of that.
  I would be happy to yield to one of the three gentlemen here.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I thank you, Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I just 
want to bring up one other topic here as well before we yield back to 
Mr. Meek, and that is also, when we ask our men and women to go over 
there and fight, and then when they come home and they are not taken 
care of, we also need to remember who we are sending over there, our 
Reservists and National Guard, but who is joining them over there. This 
is a tangential but important topic. President Bush has talked a lot 
about this coalition of the willing, and we need to understand

[[Page H1958]]

that the American people, when they hear about the allied forces over 
there, know who they are now, because people are jumping ship faster 
than the evening news can keep up with it. Great Britain, Poland, 
Lithuania, South Korea. By the week, somebody else walks away. And as 
we make decisions in Iraq, like this plan for escalation in which there 
is not even a pretext of reaching out and forming some international 
consensus, remember when we went into Iraq in the first place, at least 
we tried to pretend that we were going to go through some international 
decision-making process. At least we sort of gave some faint illusion 
of using the United Nations as a forum for which to have this 
discussion. You didn't even hear a conversation about trying to reach 
out to our allies with this plan to escalate this war. I mean, we 
didn't. Because why? Because we knew if we asked Great Britain or 
Poland or South Korea or Lithuania to be part of this force, the answer 
would be pretty simple.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If the gentleman would yield for a question. 
It is somewhat rhetorical, but if you know the answer, feel free to 
tell me what it is. Do you know what percentage of the troops that are 
over in Iraq that we will have as a Nation once Great Britain pulls 
out?
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. If you sort of listen to the rhetoric 
coming out of the administration, you would think this grand coalition 
has, what, 50 percent American troops, 60 percent, 70 percent, 80 
percent? No. Ninety-two percent. Ninety-two percent of the troops on 
the ground in Iraq are American forces. We went from a high of 
coalition troops, those are non-American troops, of 25,000, and now 
down to almost below 15,000 troops and dropping by the day.
  So I think that is just a point of information that we have now 
decided on a path that isn't even going to have a hint of coalition-
building. We have decided to go this on our own. And, frankly, I think 
that has grievous consequences for what is happening on the ground in 
Iraq, frankly has just as important consequences for the future of 
foreign policy when we have gotten to a point where we don't even talk 
to our allies about our strategy there.
  And I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I thank you so very much for yielding. I think 
it is important for us to also realize that the next action that we 
will probably, no probably, we will have on Iraq, Mr. Speaker and 
Members, will be the $99.6 billion emergency supplemental to the war. 
And I think it is important that we pay very close attention to this 
vote that is coming up and what leads up to that vote.
  I spoke earlier about making sure that troop readiness, that troops 
have what they need when they go. I spoke of going to get a procedure 
done. You have a medical procedure that needs to be done, the first 
thing you want to check and make sure is the doctor has what he or she 
needs to be able to complete the procedure, because you do want to get 
up from that table one day.
  This is very, very important. And I think that as we continue to talk 
about this issue of Iraq, it is our responsibility; we cannot critique 
the present administration or the past majority in this House if we do 
the same thing they did and expect different results. That is just not 
going to happen. We know that those that have come before us, whatever 
authority they might have been from the executive branch, and said they 
have what they need, we have the up-armored Humvees, we have all the 
things that they need when they get there. We were told that. And, 
better yet, we still have men and women at Walter Reed and other 
veterans hospitals, military hospitals throughout this country and even 
in Germany, and I visited twice, that are without legs because they 
didn't have the up-armored Humvees that they needed.
  So saying all of that, the debate is going to be: Are we going to do 
the same thing that the Republican majority did, saying that we talk a 
good game about standing up on behalf of the troops and we disagree 
with the President on certain issues as it relates to Iraq? But if we 
do what they did, which was very little, then what happened in November 
will not reach its full potential in making sure that we head in a new 
direction.
  So I think it is important that we take this in a very strong way, 
and I am glad that we had 17 Republicans join us on a nonbinding 
resolution before we left here, the last big action that we took before 
we left on Presidents' break. And I encourage more of my Republican 
colleagues to be a part of this movement in the new direction. I think 
it is very, very important. I think there have been a lot of things 
that have been highlighted. I know that the whole coalition of the 
willing will soon be the coalition of one, because we are going to be 
the only country that is left. There is a lot of rhetoric going on, we 
have to be there because we have to fight them over there so we don't 
have to fight them here. I don't hear Great Britain saying that. I 
don't hear some of the other countries that have announced their 
departure and those that have left Iraq.

  I am one to believe, just as a single Member, that there will be a 
U.S. presence for some time in the region. But at the levels that we 
are now, over 143,000 troops and counting, it is going to be very 
difficult for us to continue to sell to the American people that there 
is a great need to keep those kinds of levels there. And as you spoke 
earlier about the readiness issue, this is very, very important. This 
is very, very important. I mean, we wouldn't want to get the word out 
to the undesirables here in the United States of America to say that 
law enforcement here is not ready to deal with major crimes here in the 
United States of America. We definitely don't want to get the word out 
to the rest of the world that we are not prepared to defend ourselves 
in a way that we should and need to be prepared to be able to defend 
ourselves or help our allies in the future.
  So I think that is important. It is something not to take lightly. A 
lot of work has to be done here. A lot of tough votes have to be taken. 
And we have to communicate with the Members and the American people to 
not let them fall behind as we go through reforming this House and 
reforming the legislative presence in this whole debate on Iraq.
  Mr. ALTMIRE. Could the gentleman yield for a moment? And then I will 
yield to the gentlewoman from Florida. On that point, I wanted to tell 
another story that happened when I was back in the district.
  I was at a fire hall meeting some folks, volunteer firemen and 
firewomen, and we were discussing the budget and one of them talked 
about how there needed to be support for our first responders. And I 
said, well, I completely agree, and I was disappointed to see that in 
the budget that the President submitted he cut funding for first 
responders, and in fact he cut fire grants by 55 percent. And the 
people around just couldn't believe that. They said, well, that can't 
possibly be true. That is not what they had heard; that is not what 
they had been led to believe. So, thankfully, the miracle of modern 
technology, I had my BlackBerry in my pocket and I pulled up the House 
Budget Committee, and Chairman Spratt has put together a wonderful Web 
site. If you go to house.gov, any of your constituents can pull up the 
Budget Committee's Web site and look at the President's budget, and 
there is a specific page on there on what the President's cuts proposed 
are for first responders. And sure enough, there is a 54.7 percent 
reduction in grants for firefighters. He almost completely zeroes out 
the COPS program.
  So when the gentleman from Florida talks about how important it is 
that we have homeland security funding back home and we fund our first 
responders, well, somewhere along the line there is a disconnect when 
it comes to what they are proposing down on the other end of 
Pennsylvania Avenue, because they don't seem to be getting that 
message.
  So I did want to tell that anecdote, that our men and women who are 
courageous in the communities and serving as volunteer firefighters 
depend on these grants and they depend on the help that they need, and 
we in the Democratic majority are going to make sure that they get it. 
But there does seem to be a disconnect on some sides as to what has 
been the case.
  I would yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. Just to quickly help close us out,

[[Page H1959]]

the bottom line is that our veterans come home and face devastating 
treatment from their government. We have outlined that tonight. We send 
them over there with equipment that in many cases is faulty. We are not 
adequately preparing them and giving them enough time to be well 
trained to do their best over there. And they are doing their level 
best given the assignment that we give them. We are not providing them 
with the resources, and we are not providing them with the equipment. 
And, fortunately, we have a Democratic Congress now that is not going 
to give this President a blank check any longer, not going to let him 
run roughshod over our duty to be a check and balance on the 
administration. And that is what the 30-something Working Group is 
designed to outline. We are going to make sure that we get the message 
out and that we help our colleagues and anyone who might also hear this 
conversation between us understand what is really going on.
  Mr. Murphy, I would yield to you to give out the Web site and Mr. 
Meek for closing.
  Mr. MURPHY of Connecticut. I think the real lesson from Mr. Altmire's 
story is that he is like a Boy Scout, he is always prepared. He has the 
information at his fingertips that his constituents need. You can learn 
something every day from our colleagues.
  To get in touch with the 30-something Dems, the e-mail is 
30SomethingD[email protected]. And then on the Web site where a lot of 
the information we are talking about here tonight and in previous 
nights can be found is www.speaker.gov/30Something. And with that, I 
will yield for final thoughts back to Mr. Meek.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you so very much, Mr. Murphy. And I want 
to thank Mr. Altmire for joining us and also Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I 
want to thank the Democratic leadership for allowing us to have one 
more 30-something Working Group hour.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, it was an honor addressing the House of 
Representatives.

                          ____________________