[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 45 (Thursday, March 15, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H2607-H2612]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Boyda of Kansas). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Ryan) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority
leader.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be
here for another session of the 30-something Working Group. We have had
a very interesting week in Congress this week, and we want to share
some of that with our fellow Members of Congress and those people
paying attention for the record on the week of sunshine in the United
States Congress.
In the past several days we have, as Democrats, continued to honor
our pledge to try to open up government, knowing that the more
information that we share, the more information that we have about the
inner workings of government, the better off we are all going to be.
I think we have all seen over the past several years how a very
closed, secretive government rules and what the end result may be of a
very closed and secretive government. We are trying to fix that
problem.
As you watch the news, Madam Speaker, as you watch the news every
single day, it seems like we continue to hear stories about problems
that we knew about many, many years ago, but we never did anything
about it because you are not allowed to admit you make mistakes.
What we have tried to do this week is try to prevent the kinds of
situations we have had with Walter Reed, try to prevent the kinds of
situations we have had with Iraq, and try to prevent the kinds of
situations we have had with Hurricane Katrina. All of these things were
happening behind closed doors, and the people involved at the Pentagon
or the Department of Defense, or whether it was in FEMA, the problem
was people in the organization or in the agency or in certain
departments knew things weren't going well or knew there wasn't a plan
or knew we didn't have the proper people in place to execute whatever
the exact role was of that agency, but nobody was allowed
[[Page H2608]]
to tell anybody or talk about it. And if you talked about it, you were
fired.
We saw Hurricane Katrina on TV. We continue to see the war on TV, and
we see what has happened at Walter Reed. Can you imagine people knew
about what was going on at Walter Reed and didn't say anything? And
then getting up in front of the TV cameras and say: We are for the
troops, and you're not. That is a problem.
The new Democratic majority has begun the problem of fixing that
problem this week. We are restoring accountability. This week we passed
whistleblower protection and other government reform bills so that
those people involved in the agencies who know how the agencies need to
be run will not be subjected to the political whims of the day.
We want them to share with us what the problems are. We want them to
share with us how we fix the agency or the department or the execution
of the mission of a specific department. And I think it is important
politically. As I am joined here by my good friend from Florida, Mr.
Meek, I think it is important that we recognize what has happened since
the Democrats have taken over.
Now we are not here to just say we are the only political party in
the country and we are the best and this and that. We had a political
situation in this country since 2000 where the presidency was
Republican and for the most part the House and the Senate were
Republican the whole time, and the Republicans have controlled this
Chamber for 14 years. And a culture of coverup happened, to where the
Republican majority in the House would not oversee or provide the
proper oversight to what was going on in FEMA, in the war, and a lot of
these other agencies.
And what has happened when the Democrats took over Congress and the
American people said we need to bring a little balance to this
situation, just look at what has happened. Walter Reed, who knows if
that would have ever come up if the Democrats weren't poking around
saying what is going on with veterans' health care?
{time} 1600
All of the issues in Iraq. Today we passed a supplemental to begin to
put the framework together to get our kids home from Iraq. And look at
what is going on with Katrina and the oversight we are providing for
that.
These are things that are happening because the American people put
balance back into the government. And we want to continue to honor the
pledges that we made previous to the last election. We want to make
sure that it is not just the whistleblower protection, but it is the 67
hearings that we have already had, Democrats have already had on Iraq.
Sixty-seven. No, it's even more.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, it is more than 67 hearings. You meant
97 last week, but now it is 104 hearings. Three digits.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And what is today, March 14?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. March 15. That's a good thing, Mr. Ryan.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. In a couple of months we've had more hearings than
the Republican majority had.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Definitely at this point in the 109th Congress,
in the 108th Congress.
But go ahead, Mr. Ryan.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I think it is important for us to really recognize
the importance and the results already of what has been happening. And
I don't know if this is a coincidence or not, but Halliburton just
picked up and moved; they just picked up and said we're moving out of
the country.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. That is no-bid contract Halliburton.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Yes. And it is a shame that a company that gets
that much public tax money would pick up and leave the very country
that they get their money from to have their corporate headquarters.
But it is important that we are living up to our commitment. We are
providing the oversight, 104 committee hearings. We are restoring
accountability with the whistleblower protection; Presidential library
donation; FOIA requests, where you can actually access documents in the
government, freedom of information. So a lot of sunshine came down on
the Capitol this week.
And I couldn't be prouder of the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi,
and Steny Hoyer and Jim Clyburn and Rahm Emanuel and John Larson, our
leadership and the Chairs of our committees for really applying the
pressure and really trying to fix things and make things better.
I yield to my friend from Florida.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Ryan. Thank you for yielding. So
kind of you. My good friend from Ohio.
Mr. Ryan, you know, yesterday when we were down here, we talked about
the bipartisan votes, the fact that we are allowing an opportunity for
the Members of Congress to vote for good commonsense, good government
legislation that they have been denied of voting on for 12 years. And
now we are in the majority, and we have an opportunity to put
legislation forth. And as Ms. Wasserman Schultz experienced in the last
Congress, we had, Madam Speaker, very few bipartisan votes because it
was the bills that came to the floor that encouraged a lack of
bipartisanship. As a matter of fact, it encouraged partisanship, to
keep us divided. And that is not what Americans asked for. They didn't
say, hey, Congressman, I am sending you to Washington, D.C. to be a
partisan. I am sending you to Washington, D.C. to make sure that we
have accountability; to make sure that we are fiscally responsible; to
make sure that we hopefully move in a new direction when we need to
move in a new direction.
And I am so happy today, with this whole Accountability in
Contracting Act, that there were 347 votes in the affirmative. Madam
Speaker, I am more concerned about the 73. How do they go back home and
say, well, I don't believe in accountability in contracting; I'm
against that. You know, I would think that the folks that did vote
against this very good piece of legislation are probably going down the
line of saying that I am committed to being a partisan, because it
wasn't my idea or it wasn't their idea. Well, the good thing that I am
excited about, because I am not going to focus on the individuals who
decided not to vote for it, I am going to focus on the 119 Republicans
that did vote for it and the 228 Democrats that did vote for it. Every
last Democrat that was voting on that bill voted in the affirmative
because it was the right thing to do. And I commend the bipartisanship,
and we will continue to talk about that.
Whistleblower protection, we talked about that yesterday, such a good
vote. I am going to say it again, Madam Speaker: 331 voting in the
affirmative. Bipartisan, the House. The majority of the House voted to
protect whistleblowers
Mr. Ryan, someone is in there in an office somewhere here in
Washington, DC, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, or in a regional office in
Atlanta and come to work every day saying that this is not the way we
should be doing things. This is against the law. That individual will
be protected once we get it through the legislature, once we get it
through the Senate and hopefully to the President.
But what I am more concerned about, Ms. Wasserman Schultz and Mr.
Ryan, is that the President has already said of these accountability
measures that we are passing that he is willing to veto three out of
four of them.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. There is a surprise.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Which is very interesting. I don't know of the
73 that voted against it today, if that is going to be the basis for
saying that that is the reason why I am going to veto it, because 73
Members of the House voted against it. But neither be here nor there, I
am glad that we are here in the majority, Madam Speaker. We have been
in the minority, but we still have not allowed the majority to get to
our heads or to our heart.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I will yield, but I was just making a wonderful
point. I will yield, Mr. Ryan, if you want me to yield.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Okay, make your point.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. We are not letting it get to our heads or our
heart or the reason why we are here in the first place.
[[Page H2609]]
And the reason why the 30-something Working Group continues to come
to the floor, Madam Speaker, because some folks thought, Ms. Wasserman
Schultz, this is just a minority project. Oh, they are in the minority,
they want to go to the floor, they want to talk about what's wrong,
they want to talk about what they will do if they ever get in the
majority, and that will be it. Well, guess what? We are here in the
majority celebrating the fact that we are doing the things that we said
we would do. I mean, that is a paradigm shift in Washington politics:
you run for office and you come here and you actually do what you said
you were going to do. And now that is being carried out.
We have always said some of our friends on the other side of the
aisle wanted to be a part of good government, 6 in `06, implementing
the 9/11 Commission. We were able to get 299 votes with 68 Republicans
voting with us on that. Raising the minimum wage, we were able to get
315 votes with 82 Republicans voting with us. Funding on enhancement of
stem cell research, H.R. 3, 253, with 37 Republicans, on and on and on.
And the reason why that is happening is not because Republicans all of
a sudden say, hey, I want to vote with Democrats and I am going to be
bipartisan. They are voting because they always wanted the opportunity,
Madam Speaker, to vote for good legislation.
Back home, I am going to tell you right now, there are Republicans
that are saying I wanted the 9/11 recommendations to be fully
implemented to protect America. They don't care who is the leader of
the Republicans in the House and who is the leader of the Democrats in
the House. They want to be secure. And those Republicans that voted
with Democrats to implement every last one of those 9/11
recommendations did so on behalf of their constituents.
So we come to the floor to talk about bipartisanship. We come to the
floor because we have always said bipartisanship can only be allowed,
Madam Speaker and Members, if the majority allows it; and we are
allowing it.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you so much to my good friend.
First, let me say that that is a beautiful orange and blue tie, Mr.
Ryan, an excellent choice of colors, and coincidentally, the colors of
my alma mater which, by the way, is playing in the NCAA tournament
beginning tomorrow night. And who will be at the White House to
celebrate the national championship in football? But I digress.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I didn't get invited to the White House.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And we can talk another time about which team
our team defeated in order to get there, Mr. Ryan of Ohio.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I think we have gotten through that.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Anyway, to get back to the matter at hand, Mr.
Meek referred to the fact that the 30-something Working Group was
probably expected to shrivel up and die, to blow away after we won the
majority, to just not re-emerge because one might think that there was
no point in our continuing to exist. However, because the United States
Congress and because we believe Democrats are responsible in the
leadership of this Congress for accountability, we absolutely need to
make sure that we use multiple facets of opportunity available to us to
hold people accountable.
We had an opportunity the last number of years to use this forum to
hold our good friends on the other side of the aisle accountable, yet
we still need to hold this administration accountable. And Lord knows
that they certainly need it, as they continue to demonstrate every
single day.
And I just want to move on a little past the whistleblower act and
the 104 hearings that we have had on this war in Iraq that have been
scheduled since we took over the leadership of this Congress to the
Attorney General, the U.S. Attorney firings that occurred in the last
10 days or so.
I just came from a House Committee on the Judiciary meeting in which
we adopted legislation that will ensure that we reassert the Congress',
on the Senate side, role in confirming U.S. Attorneys and restore the
check and balance that used to be in place before a provision was
inserted in the dead of night by the Republicans in the conference
committee without any committee reviewing it whatsoever. They
completely changed the way the U.S. Attorneys were confirmed. They
politicized that process without any Member being able to have the
opportunity to debate it in the light of day.
And clearly we can see as a result of the actions of Attorney General
Gonzales and the fact that he has chosen to throw a staff person under
the bus rather than have the buck stop with him, seems to be a pattern
in this administration, i.e. Scooter Libby. We need to make sure that
Congress reasserts our oversight role, and that is exactly what we just
did in the Judiciary Committee.
But let's just recap what happened with the U.S. Attorneys. Eight
U.S. Attorneys were fired. Now, the U.S. Attorneys serve at the
pleasure of the President, and we certainly don't deny that. However,
when asked, when an inquiry was made, as is the Congress'
responsibility, as to why those eight U.S. Attorneys were fired, the
answer that we got was, well, the eventual answer we got was that it
was performance related. Well, of course the eight U.S. Attorneys took
umbrage at that and some of them came forward and suggested that there
were actually some lawmakers, our good friends on the other side of the
aisle specifically, that called and inquired about the progress of
cases against Democrats in their jurisdiction. And then coincidentally,
a few weeks later those that had gotten called that weren't responsive
enough seemed to have been let go.
Now, in the wake of all of this, in the wake of the Attorney General
being less than factual in front of a committee of this body and in the
wake of the clear difference in what he said and what actually
happened, you have the chief of staff to the Attorney General who has
resigned. Last week you had another individual responsible for
overseeing the U.S. Attorneys resign. Now, they say that he was on his
way out anyway.
But it is time, and thank God we are able to now exercise Congress'
oversight role and make sure that we have some fairness, make sure that
we have justice administered in the way that Americans expect it to be,
and that we are not politicizing the Department of Justice or the legal
process that U.S. Attorneys oversee in each of their jurisdictions.
Without us pointing that out, it would normally have just been swept
under the rug. The administration would have just tried to ride it out
and weather the storm. But now that we have a Democratic Congress, they
can't do that anymore.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. That just happened.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. That just happened. And it is funny how the chiefs
of staff are dropping like flies, first the Vice President's, and now
the Attorney General's.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, if you would yield. I mean, Ms.
Wasserman Schultz, we were just talking just the other day about outing
CIA agents; we were just talking about it. And in the last Congress
folks were like, why are you all speculating? We are not speculating, I
mean, someone is not telling the truth. Now a court of law said that
people did know certain things. And you are right, Mr. Ryan, I mean,
the most endangered job, especially if you are on the other side of the
aisle, is to be chief of staff. Now people are looking at the chief of
staff in a different way than they have done before in the past.
{time} 1615
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. If I can make a point.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Make that point.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. The Attorney General's office, with all these
problems, let's think about the role and the mission of the Attorney
General's office in the post-9/11 era. We now have Senators calling the
current Attorney General not up to the job, I think was the phrase, he
is not up to the job, and the other comments that those folks have
made.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. They actually went farther than that. You have
a former Chief of Staff of the White House, a U.S. Senator from New
Hampshire, Mr. Sununu, who said, ``I think the Attorney General should
be fired,'' period, dot, in the words of Mr. Meek.
[[Page H2610]]
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. The thing is, this has been going on for a long
time, and it's not until now where the threat of oversight looms, like
impending danger.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I know Ms. Wasserman Schultz will be returning
soon, but while we have two high level members of the House
Appropriations Committee on the floor at the same time, since you share
with me how important the Appropriations Committee is, we need to talk
about what's going to happen next week, because I think it's important
that the Members understand that we are carrying out a great mission
here.
On Tuesday, I know the House will meet at 10:30 for morning business,
and we will consider suspension bills, what have you, but we are going
to have on the floor next week H.R. 1227, which is the Gulf Coast
Hurricane Housing Recovery Act. That is going to resolve many of the
issues that gulf coast States and States in the future will face, and
will allow us, allow the Federal Government to work in an appropriate
way versus an inappropriate way of not being prepared for the needs of
the American people.
Then on Wednesday we are going to deal with U.S. troop readiness and
accountability act, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq
Accountability Act. Mr. Ryan, you and I were talking about this
yesterday, and you were marking it up, or you have marked it up in the
Appropriations Committee.
I think it's important that we share with the Members, as they break
to go home back to their districts, that the real story within this
bill is that it has accountability, that it is protecting the troops in
a way that the Department of Defense has said that they should be
protected, using their own rules and regulations for readiness.
Now, what does that mean? That is to assure, Mr. Ryan, as you
mentioned yesterday, that they have what they need when they go into
theater, that it is already there before they get there. They have
things that are simple like Kevlar vests, up-armored vehicles, to make
sure that they have appropriate downtime before they are put back into
the theater. These are Department of Defense regulations. These are not
regulations that we came up with here in Congress, this is Department
of Defense regulations. So we took those regulations and put it into
this legislation.
Looking at holding the Iraqi government to the benchmarks that the
President spoke about, when he spoke of his escalation on plan, it's
holding the President and also the Iraqi government accountable for
benchmarks as it relates to continued funding. Also, I mentioned the
strategy of redeployment of U.S. troops by 2008. I think that is very
important.
Yesterday I read some poll numbers, Mr. Ryan, that the American
people are far ahead of the Bush administration on this issue. Guess
what, we are helping the American people make sure their message makes
it into law, makes it into this great emergency supplemental that has
teeth in it and that has benchmarks for accountability and fiscal
responsibility.
Also, when we look at refocusing military efforts on Afghanistan and
fighting terrorism, it's in the bill. What is also in the bill is
expanding funding for veterans health care and hospitals. Our track
record is clean on this, $3.6 billion went into veterans health care
prior to the Walter Reed story breaking, prior to this emergency
supplemental, and the continuing resolution that we passed almost a
month ago.
If we can talk a little bit about this legislation, the legislation
is coming up next week, but talk about the significance, not only of
housing for individuals who are in gulf coast areas, but also the U.S.
Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act. You all
just had a great discussion on it today.
Can you share it with the Members so they know exactly what they are
voting on next week? You know, in the 30-Something Working Group, we
hate to see Members that don't fully understand what they are voting
on, because when they go back home and a veteran walks up to him and
says, Congressman, Congresswoman, why didn't you vote for additional
funding for veterans health care, or when they go to a military base, a
Reserve unit, National Guard or Active duty, and they say, well,
Congressman, Congresswoman, why are you putting me back into the
theater and I just left the theater 120 days ago? That is against
Department of Defense regulations.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Can I share a story with you? I know I have
shared this with you before, but I think it's worth repeating.
Right before we debated the Iraq war resolution a couple of weeks
ago, I took the opportunity to go to Walter Reed and visit our wounded
soldiers, had a chance to meet with six or eight of the finest young
men that I have ever encountered. One of them was a young man who
suffered from an inexplicable illness and was recovering at Walter
Reed.
When I met him, his wife and his 6 year-old little boy were there.
The gentleman explained to me that he had been in the middle of his
third tour of duty, and he had a 6 year-old little boy. Each tour was 1
year, 1 year.
Now, if you do the math, that means that he missed half of his little
boy's life. The overwhelming sadness that came over me was almost too
much to bear. I mean, this little boy was so sweet, his wife was so
understanding, they were so committed to his dad's service, her
husband's service. The little boy said to me, just spontaneously, you
know, as 6 year-old little boys are, I have a 7 year-old little boy so
I know, he spontaneously burst out, he knew his dad was supposed to
finish his tour in August, and he was going to come home forever in
August. We forget this is about families and people, and we are
destroying the fabric of these families.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I have to run to the whip's office for an
important meeting. I am a member of the Ways and Means Committee. Maybe
you all will get a call. I know you are all important, you may get a
call as members of the Appropriations Committee to go to the Democratic
whip, office of the majority whip, but let me just say this very
quickly, the men and women in uniform are standing by for us to sling-
shot them in. They want us to stand up for them.
Mr. Ryan, I told you the other day a great Ohio saying, you have to
have these sayings in Washington, D.C. and in politics, where they said
that we have to remember that the field mouse is fast, but the owl can
see at night. It's important that every Member of the House remember
why we are here in the first place. People voted for us, you mentioned
families, people voted for us to stand up for them, not stand up for a
political party or to stand up on behalf of, oh, well, my President is
in the White House.
Guess what, the President is the President for the entire country. I
don't say your President, he is my President too. When we have issues
such as this and we have supplementals, the President said we had a
nonbinding resolution, it's nonbinding.
Guess what, this is binding. For folks who are looking for a binding
document, this will be a binding document with accountability measures.
I hope the two of you as members of the Appropriations Committee can go
into it further, because we do have some Members that are on the fence,
and we want those Members to vote on behalf of the continuing emergency
supplemental so that the troops get what they need. They want us to
stand in for them. They want to make sure that we make sure that we
sling-shot them in for a win for a change, and this is on behalf of the
men and women in uniform, our veterans have been waiting for them.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. If the gentleman will yield, there is no better way
to support the troops than this supplemental bill that just passed out
of our committee, and it will be on this floor next week. If you want
to talk about sling-shotting the troops in, what we have done, and the
Democratic leadership, and Mr. Murtha, Mr. Obey has been absolutely
phenomenal as to what we have been able to do; $1.7 billion more than
the President's request for defense health care. I don't know how you
could vote against us; $450 million for post-traumatic stress disorder;
$450 million for traumatic brain injury care and research; $730 million
to prevent health care fee increase for our troops; $20 million to
address problems at Walter Reed, and almost $15 million for
[[Page H2611]]
burn care; another $1.7 billion in addition to the President's request
for veterans health care, $550 million to address the backlog in
maintaining VA health care facilities, which has been a huge problem;
$250 million for medical administration to ensure sufficient personnel
to support the growing number of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who are
coming back so that they can have the level of service that they need.
Now it's one thing to say you support the troops and then you turn
around and you vote against a bill that has $4- or $5 billion in it to
support the veterans and the troops coming back. It seems quite
apparent to me that this is something that we need to do.
Believe me, nobody wants to get out of war faster than me. I want to
be out this afternoon, tomorrow morning. Let's come back. This has been
foolish to begin with, but there is a certain reality on logistical
needs and diversity in the country of how we should do this.
So what we have done today was create a real framework for our kids
to come back home, to let the Iraqis stand up, and put these
benchmarks. I just want to talk for a minute about what these
benchmarks are. Some people say, well, you are tying the President's
hands, you are trying to micromanage more. We are not. That is not
true.
The facts of the matter are these, the President and the Pentagon
have benchmarks. So how many Iraqi troops need to be trained, what does
the political situation need to look like? Have they achieved their
political and military benchmarks that have been set by the President?
All we are saying is that you have to show some progress towards those
benchmarks by July.
Now, granted, we have already been in this war longer than we were in
World War II. So by July you better show some progress as to meeting
the benchmarks. If you are not showing progress, we will begin to
redeploy out.
But if by July you are showing some progress, you will then have
until October to actually meet the benchmarks. If you don't meet them
by October, we redeploy. If you do meet them by October, we redeploy,
because you have met the benchmarks.
This is just bringing this war to a reasonable end. What we have done
today, I think the end is in sight.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I am so glad that you went through those
benchmarks and stressed that these were the President's benchmarks that
we used. The President, on January 10, outlined the benchmarks for
success, that he felt were imperative that we need.
Those were that we must give the United States the authority to
pursue all extremists, we must rein in the militias and have Iraqis
step up to the plate to enforce security. They have to decide how their
oil revenues are going to be distributed. That is a very important
benchmark that has to be accomplished, and they have to pass
reconciliation initiatives to keep their country together. Their
country is essentially about to fall apart. They are in the midst of
civil war and are absolutely at the breaking point.
Besides those benchmarks that we had in that supplemental that we
passed out of the Appropriations Committee today, and besides the
incredibly necessary emergency funding that the troops need and that
our veterans need, we also put provisions in that legislation to make
sure that our troops can catch their breath.
I referred to that soldier who I met in Walter Reed, whose little boy
just wanted him to come home, and who had missed half his little boy's
life. We have soldiers, many, many soldiers, who have completed three
tours of duty, are about to go on their fourth, who are deployed for
365 days and then that deployment is extended.
The language we put in that bill ensures and says to the Army that
they need to make sure that those deployments are not beyond 365 days.
{time} 1630
The President can waive that provision by submitting a report to
Congress detailing why that unit's deployment is in the interest of
national security. But that is the kind of accountability that we are
inserting to protect our troops, to make sure that the President
certifies that that deployment, that extension is absolutely essential
to protect national security, despite the assessment that the unit is
not fully mission capable.
Our readiness is shot. We are spread so incredibly thin, and we are
talking about the impact on human beings' lives.
How about the length of deployment? The language in our bill requires
the Defense Department to abide by its current policy and avoid
extending the deployment of units in Iraq in excess of the 365 days. We
have to make sure that those units are fully mission capable, and the
time between deployments is essential as well.
The Defense Department would be required to abide by, again, its
current policy and avoid sending units back into Iraq before troops get
the required time out of the combat zone and training time, 365 days
for the Army, and 210 days for the Marines. And the President can also
waive that provision in the interest of national security. He just has
to certify to Congress that that is the case.
And that is the kind of accountability that the American people
insisted upon on November 7. They asked us for a new direction, in the
6 in 2006 items of our agenda that we have already passed, and they
insisted that we move this war in a new direction so that there would
be an end in sight, so that the President would no longer have a blank
check, and so that we could make sure we could protect our men and
women in uniform who are protecting us. And I would be happy to yield
to the gentleman. And I am going to have to take my leave of the
gentleman because I have constituents that are in town that I need to
speak with. I look forward to you carrying on
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I look forward to the old team being back down
here. And I just want to continue as to what we are doing to try to fix
this problem.
As I said, with the benchmarks and making sure the Iraqi soldiers
stand up, but a key component of this, as Ms. Wasserman Schultz has
just mentioned is that we are saying that our troops can't leave here,
the United States, and go to Iraq if they don't have the requisite
level of equipment and training. And I don't think there is anybody in
the country who would want to send one of our soldiers or lots of our
soldiers off to war knowing, and the legal term is mense rea, you know,
with intent, send kids that don't have the proper equipment and
training.
And the training part is something that Ms. Wasserman Schultz was
just talking about. We have a readiness crisis in the Army. We are not
capable now of handling another situation, military situation.
Now, I think if you would ask the American people are we
overstretched, they would all say yes. And if you talk to the military
families, they say, yes, we are overstretched to the point where we
have kids in battle who don't have everything that they need. And that
is unacceptable. And so in our supplemental bill, we are saying that if
you don't have the training and the equipment and the proper amount of
rest, you are not going.
Now, we put a waiver in there so that the President could waive it if
there is a national security interest involved. But we don't like it. I
know I don't like it. I shouldn't speak on behalf of everybody.
But the bottom line is, the President is the President. He is the
Commander in Chief. He won the election in 2004. So we are left to deal
with the situation.
And if you look at some of the polling in the country, 76 percent of
Americans favor requiring U.S. troops returning from Iraq to have at
least 1 year in the U.S. before being redeployed. That is a Gallup
poll. Seventy-seven percent favor requiring U.S. troops to come home
from Iraq if Iraq's leaders fail to meet promises to reduce violence
there. And 76 percent of the American people don't think the Bush
administration has done everything they could reasonably be expected to
do to care for the needs and problems of veterans.
But the bottom line is the American people want accountability, and
the American people want to change course. You don't see the kind of
tidal wave election that we had in November without a message that
comes with it. And the message is, we need to change direction. And the
Iraq supplemental bill that passed out of the Appropriations Committee
today and will pass
[[Page H2612]]
off the floor next week is that change in direction.
Is it everything all of us want? No. Are there things in there that
we don't like? Yes. But we have to change direction in this war. It is
not going well.
And you talk to the families and, you know, as a Member of Congress,
I have made the phone calls, other Members of Congress have made the
phone calls to parents. We have been to the funerals, and it is not
good. And quite frankly, I don't want to go to any more. But I found
out yesterday that I have got to go to another one.
This war has got to end, and it has got to stop. And what we are
doing is the quickest way for us to go about bringing a reasonable,
thoughtful end to this war, and that means getting our troops out of
the middle of a civil war in Iraq.
There are only 2,000 al Qaeda members in Iraq. The war on terrorism
needs to move back to Afghanistan, the country that harbored Osama bin
Laden. And in this bill there is 1.2 billion additional dollars from
the President's request to focus back on Afghanistan, because now
Afghanistan, we are starting to lose our way in Afghanistan now because
of the lack of focus.
So I think it is very important that the American people recognize
what is in this bill. There are benchmarks there that the Iraqis need
to meet. And if they don't begin to meet them and show some progress,
we start moving out.
We have had 4 years for them to get their stuff together. And for
whatever reason, they haven't. And think, contrary to what some of my
friends on the other side have been saying, and the President has said,
and people who have kids and everything realize this, this is very
basic, that the President is saying, well, if you give them a
benchmark, then they are just going to wait us out, and then we leave,
and then they will take over, like everything is great right now, and
then it will get bad. But it is bad right now.
What we are saying is if we communicate to the Iraqis that we are
going to stay there indefinitely, then they will never get their stuff
together because they are always relying on us. And what we are saying
is, we are not going to be there indefinitely; you better start getting
along with each other.
And I hate even saying that because I didn't want this war to happen
in the first place. Now we broke them and now we are saying, get your
stuff together.
But the bottom line is this, we are where we are, and they need to
get together. And the political and religious factions need to get
together. And if they don't, we need to leave. And if they do, we need
to leave.
I think we have spent enough money, 400, going to be $500 billion in
Iraq. $500 billion. And 3,100-plus lives, 20-some thousand soldiers who
have been amputees, brain injuries, post-traumatic stress disorder.
Enough is enough. Enough is enough. It is time to bring this war to an
end. And that is what our supplemental ultimately does.
And so, in closing, I would just like to say, Madam Speaker, that the
last 3 weeks we have had hearings in our Labor, Health and Education
Subcommittee, and we have had great people testifying on health care in
the United States, education in the United States, very interesting
stuff. But there are two things that have really hit home to me as I
was sitting through these committees with all these experts.
And we had the education experts saying to us that this may be the
first generation of Americans who will not have the standard of living
or improved standard of living, compared to that of their parents. That
was one hearing.
And then the next hearing came in and it was the health care experts.
And the health care experts were saying that this generation may be the
first generation of Americans that do not exceed the life expectancy
level of their parents because of the crisis that we are having in
health and obesity in the United States. Literally, your parents may,
if you are a kid, your parents may live longer than you live. First
time.
And when you look at the money that we are spending to destroy and to
kill, as opposed to the money that we spend to create and to build up,
it is tragic. It is tragic. And I hate voting for this stuff, but we
have to because we have got to get out of there.
But the bottom line is this, we are spending hundreds and hundreds
and hundreds of billions of dollars, and the Head Start program that
helps kids get off the ground is being cut by $100 million in the
President's budget. We are going to fix that. That is not going to end
up that way.
But when you look at we are spending hundreds and hundreds of
billions of dollars and flatlining funding on programs like Gear Up and
TRIO that help young kids get into colleges and that we are not
covering enough kids with children's health care, I hope we all
remember this when we get through this war and it is time to make the
proper investments in our country.
We only have 300 million people in this country. China has 1.3
billion. India has 1 billion. We need everybody on the field playing
for us.
Let's put this war to an end. Let's bring our kids home with dignity,
and make sure that when they get home these veterans have the proper
health care that they need and that they deserve, and then let's start
making some investments into this country so that we can be the best
that we can possibly be.
Madam Speaker, you can e-mail us at [email protected],
or visit us at www.speaker.gov/30something and comment. All of the
charts that were seen here are on display on the Web site.
And with that, we conclude our 30-something for the week, and we will
see you next week.
____________________