[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 51 (Friday, March 23, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H3010-H3015]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Loebsack). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 18, 2007, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman
Schultz) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority
leader.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank the Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and our entire Democratic
leadership for the opportunity for the 30-Something Working Group to
once again come to the floor and talk about the priorities of the
Democratic Caucus and the new direction for America that we are humbled
to be able to lead this country in.
On November 7 of last year, the American people spoke loudly and
clearly, Mr. Speaker, that it was imperative that we move this Nation
in a new direction on a variety of issues, not the least of which is
the direction that we are going in in this war in Iraq. And I am so
proud today to be able to stand here knowing that the vote that I cast
personally and that the 217 other Members that passed that legislation
off this floor this afternoon cast so that we can now finally begin to
ensure that our troops will have the armor that they need, the armor
and equipment that they need, a plan to get them home most importantly,
and to ensure that we can begin to transition in Iraq so that the Iraqi
people will be able to stand on their own, run their democracy and make
sure that they can focus on solving the civil war and the strife that
is going on in the midst of their country, because that is essentially
what we have been doing for them. What we have been doing for them that
we can no longer continue to do is inserting ourselves in the middle of
their chaos without plans to be able to withdraw, without a single
brigade of their army completely trained to stand on their own. It is
time and the American people have insisted that it is time to begin to
move in the direction where we can shift the mission from combat to
training, where we can focus our troops that will remain there by the
end of next year on counterterrorism, on putting down the insurgency
and on making sure that the Iraqi troops are well trained so that they
can continue to move forward with their experiment in democracy. That
is what the legislation that we passed today will do, and I am so proud
of our caucus and of our colleagues and of our leadership for the work
that we have done together, for the unity that we showed, for the
courage that so many of our colleagues showed, Mr. Speaker. We have a
very diverse caucus, a very diverse group of Democratic Members who for
a variety of reasons, for a variety of soul searching were able to come
together from all of the different facets of the philosophical
spectrum, to come together today and pass this extremely important
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I have been in public office for 14 years. I have only
served in the U.S. House of Representatives for 2 years, but that was
one of the most emotional experiences and the most difficult
experiences that I know I have gone through. And I cast that vote
knowing that I had the support of my constituents, knowing and
confident that my constituents want to make sure that we can bring
those American troops home.
I had an opportunity to travel and spend some time with our troops at
Walter Reed Army Medical Center a few weeks ago before we voted on the
resolution opposing the President's escalation proposal. I have said
this the last few times we have talked about this on the floor. I had a
chance to speak to a number of different troops individually. One young
man who has stayed with me, and I think I've thought about him and his
family every single day since then. As a mom with little kids, I have
7-year-old twins and a 3-year-old little girl. Almost every major vote
I cast, I cast with them in mind. There is another generation of
Americans who we are going to protect from that vote that we cast
today. And this young man who I had a chance to meet with, he had just
gotten home from his third tour of duty. Each was a year. His third
tour and his 6-year-old little boy was in the room along with his wife
and his little boy was so excited and just full of vibrancy and life.
He shook my hand. It was just so neat to be able to talk to him. He
told me that his daddy was finally going to be coming home for good,
forever, in August. He had come down with a really inexplicable illness
and was convalescing at Walter Reed. And when the young man told me
that he had been through his third tour of duty and that his boy was 6,
it was not lost on me that he had missed half of his son's life, a 6-
year-old little boy with his dad gone for 3 separate years. That is
just unacceptable. That is not what the procedures are supposed to
require of our men and women in uniform. There is supposed to be at
least 365 days of noncombat duty in between tours. The legislation that
we passed today will ensure that that will happen. The legislation that
we passed today will ensure that our troops have the equipment that
they need. It will ensure that $1.7 billion in funding will provide the
health care that our veterans need.
I listened to a lot of the speeches on the floor, almost all of them,
today. What we continually heard from our friends on the other side of
the aisle was almost as if maybe they didn't
[[Page H3011]]
read the bill, maybe they weren't paying attention, but more likely
they were just being political. I heard comments about how our
legislation didn't provide the equipment for the troops, when up until
now it is this President, with the acknowledgment of the military
leadership, that has sent our troops into harm's way without the proper
training. We have the least trained, least prepared Army that we have
ever had at this point, spread as thin as they possibly could be
spread, and then they have the nerve on the other side of the aisle to
suggest that it is us that is not providing the protection for our
troops. That is ludicrous. I'm not sure whether they're not listening
to their constituents when they're home or not having a chance like I
did and like I know you have to sit down with troops who have been in
the line of duty. Maybe they're listening with different ears or maybe
more likely they're listening with a different heart, because the heart
that I listened with knows that we can't allow the pointless loss of
human life anymore, not for our men and women in uniform and not for
the Iraqi people who are also losing their lives in the midst of chaos.
If we are going to focus on the war on terror, we should be shifting
our approach to the war in Afghanistan, where we provide a significant
infusion of funding, badly needed funding so that we can turn
Afghanistan back around.
If you recall, Mr. Speaker, after the tragedy of 9/11 and we
initially went in to respond to that tragedy, to stand up for America,
we went into Afghanistan and we got rid of the Taliban and we made sure
that we could restore human rights in that country and we could restore
the rights of women to go to school and to walk in public without a
burqa and to really shine the light of freedom on a country that lived
in darkness for decades. Instead, this President and this Republican
leadership shifted our focus, lost our purpose, lost their way, or gave
up is really a better way to put it, and invaded Iraq under false
pretenses, provided this Congress, many of our colleagues who voted
``yes'' relying on the information from this administration that it was
out of necessity. This wasn't a war of necessity. This was a war of
choice. We don't have the luxury of going into wars of choice, Mr.
Speaker, when we have wars of necessity like Afghanistan, when we have
a situation like we have in Iran, where we have a leader in that
country who has threatened the very existence of the State of Israel,
our closest ally in the Middle East, where we have nations in the
Middle East who truly want to see democracy fail. Instead, we have
created an incubator for terrorism in Iraq.
I heard colleagues on the other side of the aisle speak today about
how we were going to lose the war on terror if we passed this
legislation today. Well, the administration has made the war on terror
worse, has made the likelihood of being attacked greater by creating
the cesspool that exists in that nation. We must take the steps that
the legislation that I proudly supported and that you proudly supported
today, that that legislation will do so that we can put some benchmarks
in place, so that we can make sure, just like the President said on
January 10, so that we can establish some benchmarks, make sure that
the Iraqi leadership meets those benchmarks, and if they don't, then
the blank check and the open-ended commitment to this pointless war
will end. That is the direction that we are now moving in.
I am pleased to be joined by my good friend and neighbor from the
State of Florida, my colleague, Mr. Kendrick Meek.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I can tell you, Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz,
it was definitely a pleasure hearing you speak as we were talking
before in the cloakroom, in the back here, Mr. Speaker, we were talking
about what happened here on this floor less than 2 hours ago. A major
vote that took place here in this House. And it didn't pass by one or
two votes. It only takes one vote to win as it relates to a bill or
what have you, a resolution moving through the floor here. I just want
to say that I am proud of the Members that voted in the affirmative for
this bill. The emergency supplemental funding bill has started a new
era as it relates to how Americans think about the war in Iraq, how our
troops are being treated in Iraq and Afghanistan and even here back at
home on health care services. And also it gave voice to those
individuals that went to the voting booth looking for representation,
looking for a new direction, looking for the Congress to carry out the
kind of oversight that we should carry out as Members of Congress on
behalf of any action that will involve the American taxpayer and in
many cases involve foreign nations loaning money to the United States
of America. We have to pay all of that back. We have to be accountable
to the U.S. taxpayer. And we have to make sure that we provide the
oversight for the American people.
Now, I heard Ms. Wasserman Schultz speak to the point. As some
members came to the floor to vote against the bill, some voted against
the bill because that's just what they do. They vote against war. They
vote against whatever their philosophy may be as it relates to war, but
also you had people that voted for the bill that is against war, that
want to see an end to war. No other emergency supplemental up until the
one that came before this House today actually put forth benchmarks for
the Iraqi government to meet, actually hold the feet to the fire of the
executive branch saying that if you are going to send additional
troops, then the parameters that you put on the Iraqi government will
actually be enforced. Department of Defense regulations as it relates
to how troops can be deployed and the readiness of our troops before
they go into theater. They wrote that in the Department of Defense, the
administrator, bureaucrats, Secretary, what have you, in the Bush
administration wrote those regulations. We put it inside this piece of
legislation and enforced it. And also we made sure that Members had the
opportunity to show their constituents where they stand.
Now, let's talk a little bit about that, because I heard the
gentlewoman from Florida mention something, folks coming to the floor,
saying things like, ``never before in the history of the country that
we've ever voted to micromanage.'' They would use words like
``micromanage.'' ``We've never come to the floor to limit anything as
it relates to war.''
And when will we have a victory?
And that has never, ever, ever happened.
{time} 1445
You know, I am in my office, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, and I am watching
these Members on the floor, and I spoke to this point last night,
because last night I was here after 10, 10:30, I actually closed the
House last night, moved to adjourn the House last night, and I couldn't
help but try to get the evidence to show that it has happened.
As a matter of fact, timelines have been set by some of the very
Republican leaders that are now in the Republican leadership right now
that came to this well here today and had issue with what the majority
of the Members of the House wanted to do and ultimately did in the
vote.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure, because this is what this
whole 30-Something Working Group is about, making sure that we shed
light where it needs to be. Let's look at this.
Bosnia, June 24, 1997, the House brought to the floor an amendment
that would set a timeline and a date certain for withdrawal of U.S.
peacekeepers from the mission in Bosnia. Pay attention to these dates.
On December 13, 1995, an attempt to prohibit funds from being used
for the deployment of ground troops in Bosnia. It actually failed 210-
218, which I have the names of those individuals that are in the
Republican leadership now that voted in the affirmative to try to stop
that from happening.
December 13, 1995, a resolution passed expressing serious concerns in
opposition to the deployment of troops in Bosnia, where ethnic
cleansing was taking place. Some of our same Members in the Republican
leadership voted to pass that piece of legislation.
Again, June, there was also another vote that was taken on June 24,
1997, voted to set a timeline, date certain for withdrawal of troops
from Bosnia, and that passed 278-148. The date certain that troops had
to leave was June 30, 1998.
I am going to say it again. Some of the same individuals that voted
today against, their reason for voting against
[[Page H3012]]
this emergency supplemental for the men and women in harm's way and the
veterans to be able to receive the kind of healthcare they deserve,
voted for a timeline in Bosnia.
Let's talk about the comparisons here. The Bosnia conflict was 18
months, Mr. Speaker. This conflict is 48-plus months, moving well into
its fifth year. The cost of Bosnia to the United States of America, $7
billion. The cost of the war in Iraq, $379 billion and counting, well
beyond $379 billion in U.S. taxpayer dollars and loan money.
Casualties in Bosnia, casualties in Bosnia, I repeat, zero of U.S.
troops. Zero. Casualties as of 10 a.m. today in Iraq of U.S. personnel,
troops, men and women in uniform, 3,229. I would even go further to say
13,415 wounded in action and have returned to duty. I would even go
further by saying 10,772 wounded in action who cannot return back to
duty.
I think it is important that we look at the facts. Again, I want to
say we didn't come down here to play around, we came down here to share
the facts, because we are both very busy people and we have things to
do and this is the end of the workweek and Members are heading back to
their districts. We want to go back to our districts too. But we want
to make sure this moment of leadership, this moment of courage, is in
the Congressional Record, to let it be known that we did have Members
that stood up on behalf of our men and women in uniform and we had the
men and women of this House that were in the majority that were willing
to put their name and their vote on the line on behalf of the men and
women that serve our country and their families.
I have the vote sheet here from the Bosnia vote. Every Republican
voted yes for the timeline, with the exception of two. It is right
here. Any Member that wants to run down to the floor and take a look at
that, they can.
Also we have here the vote as it relates to passing the resolution
that we had today, which is the emergency supplemental, roll call vote
186. I can say for the two Republicans who voted in opposite of the
Republican leadership, when we took the vote on June 24, 1997, were
consistent today of the only two Republicans that voted in the
affirmative with the majority of the House to make sure that we place
benchmarks and a timeline in Iraq. Consistency for those two Members,
that anyone can find in the Congressional Record, and we commend them
for their consistency.
So I think it is important, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, that we look at
the hard facts here and the tough votes that need to be taken. Does
everyone agree with what is in the emergency supplemental? I don't
agree with everything that is in the emergency supplemental. But for
the greater good of the men and women in harm's way, I voted for it.
There are Members in here who had a rough time and it was also very
tough vote for them. But they didn't want to continue to look in the
eyes of their constituents as they go to high school programs and
junior high school programs and they are asked a question, as I am
asked a question, and I don't ask folks for their voter registration, I
don't ask, well, are you a constituent of mine or not?
The prevailing question is, Congressman, how long are we going to be
in Iraq? I can't answer the question, because the President says we are
going to be there as long as we need to be there. And, guess what?
Those very same individuals, Democrat, Republican, independent, some
individuals never voted before in their lives, went last November and
voted for a new direction, voted for leadership, voted for an
opportunity to have this Congress stand in the position that it should
be standing, and that is oversight and accountability on behalf of the
men and women that are in harm's way.
So I feel that the Members that voted in the affirmative, voted for
outstanding healthcare, moving in the direction of outstanding
healthcare for our veterans, making sure that our men and women when
they are deployed, some of them are deployed 120 days after they return
back to their family because some bureaucrat in the Defense Department
says, well, we got to make sure we keep our rotation and our troop
numbers, levels, up to over 143,000 troops on the ground. I know this
brigade has only been home for a couple of months, three months, we
have to get them back in the fight, when the Department of Defense
regulations rule against that.
But I must add, Mr. Speaker, to make sure since we are having a
moment of clarity, in this bill it allows the President, if it is
within the national security interests that these troops go back into
theater, he has the ability to do that, but report to Congress on that
action.
So anyone that says we are binding the President, we are endangering
the troops, the general can't do what he wants to do, that has nothing
to do with it. That is nothing but rhetoric. That is nothing but good
talking points for a crowd that you may want to get a cheer out of
based on where you are.
But the reality and the hard-core facts are we have been sent up here
to legislate and to bring about oversight, and that the President of
the United States is not the only person that can make decisions on
accountability and oversight. It is the U.S. Congress constitutionally
and also it is our duty.
We are not in the forward area. We don't wear a uniform. But we have
been sent here to make sure things go the way they are supposed to go
on behalf of the men and women in harm's way.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I wanted to take off on the point you just
made about the ability we give for the President to make a decision
that he thinks is in the national interest, of national security.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation provides benchmarks, the same
benchmarks that this President came before the country and said were
essential on January 10; that we have unit readiness; that we have a
length of deployment.
We have two sets of benchmarks here. We have benchmarks that this
Democratic Congress put in this legislation to make sure we can protect
our troops, to make sure we weren't sending them into harm's way
unprepared. Then we have benchmarks in this bill to ensure that the
Iraqis meet their obligations. Those obligations, those benchmarks, are
the same ones that the President indicated to the American people were
essential when he spoke to the Nation on January 10.
When this Congress switched from Republican to Democrat after
November 7, the main reason it happened is because the American people
were sick and tired of being sick and tired. They had lost their
confidence in their government. Their confidence in this Congress was
badly shaken. We had scandals. We had a culture of corruption. We had a
situation where the American people couldn't believe that their
Congress was doing right on their behalf, and that the majority,
Republican at the time, was here for the right reasons. That is why
there was a wholesale shift and we won 33 seats on November 7.
We are exercising Congress's appropriate oversight role and
reasserting the system of checks and balances that the Founding Fathers
envisioned, particularly by putting language in this bill that ensures
that units have to be ready. They have to be prepared. The chief of the
military department concerned has to determine that a unit is fully
mission capable before it is deployed to Iraq.
The reason that I wanted to interject during Mr. Meek's remarks is
because you, Mr. Meek, mentioned that the President can certify to the
Congress that sending a unit into harm's way in Iraq in spite of the
fact that they are not fully mission capable would be in the national
interest.
He is the commander-in-chief. There is no question that the President
is the commander-in-chief. But it is our responsibility as Members of
Congress that we look out for the American people, specifically and
especially in this case our men and women in uniform who are going over
to defend this country. We provide the funding to send them over. We
provide the funding to ensure that they are fully equipped and
prepared. And the President should have to come back to us and say in
spite of the fact that this unit, these women and men are going over
there unprepared and aren't fully mission capable, it still is in the
national interest to send them. That is the least that he can do.
He can maintain his role as commander-in-chief in this legislation,
but he has to make sure that he is doing right by our troops, and he
has to own
[[Page H3013]]
up to what he is doing in this legislation, including in their length
of deployment.
There is a Defense Department policy, Mr. Speaker, that requires the
Department of Defense to abide by its current policy, which is that you
shouldn't deploy a unit to Iraq or any region more than 365 days for
the Army and more than 210 days for the Marines. The President in this
legislation can waive that provision too, but he has to say that it is
in the national interest to do so, to send troops on another tour with
less than a year's rest, less than 210 days in the case of Marines.
Again, he has to actually say to that young man, whose 6-year-old boy
I met, it is okay to miss half your son's life, because we need you, it
is in the national interest, instead of being able to sort of duck and
cover and do it in a clandestine way without the American people really
knowing and without him owning up to it.
The same with time between deployments. It requires the Defense
Department, besides length of deployment, the time between deployment
is essential as well. The President can waive that provision, but he
has to say to the Congress that it is in the national interests to do
so.
We also have benchmarks related to the Iraqi people as well. By July
1, 2007, the President has to certify that Iraq is making meaningful
and substantial progress in meeting political and military benchmarks,
including a militia disarmament program and a plan that equitably
shares oil revenues among all Iraqis. After all, they are in the midst
of civil war. They are killing each other over things like that.
The President has to certify there is progress being made. Otherwise,
we are going to be there forever, with no end in sight, with no
pressure on the Iraqi leadership to get the job done. Why would they
feel the need to move in the direction of progress if they know that
there is a never-ending, open-ended commitment for us to be there and
for the money to keep flowing.
{time} 1500
They also have to achieve political and military benchmarks. By
October 1, 2007, the President has to certify that Iraqis have achieved
political and military benchmarks, and if he doesn't provide that
certification, then U.S. forces will begin immediate deployment
completed by March 2008. There are steps toward progress that the Iraqi
leadership must take or we are not going to continue to put our men and
women in harm's way, and we shouldn't.
And, finally, we need to eventually end our participation in this
war. Our commitment there should be finite, not open-ended. The
President should not have a blank check, and this legislation that we
passed today ensures that.
I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, when you think about it,
you can't help but think about the debate that took place, and the vote
has now happened. And again, Mr. Speaker, I commend those that worked
very hard day in and day out to make sure that Members felt comfortable
in voting for this legislation.
I think it is also mindful for us to remember, because so many times
here in Washington, D.C., and even when we return back to our
districts, I return back to sunny south Florida; Ms. Wasserman Schultz
does the same. Some of us go to the far West. Some of us go to the
Northeast, where it is very cold and frigid. Some of us go down to the
Southwest and Arizona and Texas and some of the other areas of the
great part of our country. Some of us from the gulf coast, some of us
from the great Blue Mountains.
I think it is very, very important for us to remember that over 56 of
our men and women in uniform died this month alone, and we are not even
out of this month yet. Over 55 men and women wearing the uniform, some
citizens, some non-citizens, some are from the west coast, some are
from the east coast, some are from urban areas, some of them are from
rural America. They are not coming back home. Their memory will ever be
in our minds and in our hearts. And we appreciate their paying the
ultimate sacrifice. We pray for their families. And we stand on their
behalf here today in making sure that we can bring the kind of
accountability forward to this government and to the Iraqi Government,
and to make sure that those that are in harm's way have what they need
when they need it.
Also, what is in this bill, and I think it is very, very important
because I want Members to not only go home and talk about that they
voted for, the majority of this House, which was good, but for those
who voted against it, I want not only them, but I want their
constituents to know what they voted against. This is serious business.
I have a lot of friends here in this Chamber. I don't know of a Member
of the House that I have a negative relationship with that I don't talk
to that person or that person doesn't talk to me. I get along. I am
second generation here in this House of Representatives; my mother
served here. But this is serious business when we start talking about
the sacrificing that U.S. families are making to bring about some sort
of harmony in the middle of a civil war in Iraq.
So the vote that took place today, Mr. Speaker, is a vote in the
right direction and in a new direction, to let it be known that this
House of Representatives is willing to play a role in the oversight of
the U.S. taxpayer dollar, and also on behalf of those that are in
harm's way right now.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I am glad that she is a member of the
Appropriations Committee because they spent a lot of time with this
legislation, this emergency supplemental. It is probably going to be
the last time that we have an emergency supplemental outside of the
regular budget process. And speaking of the budget, Mr. Speaker, we are
going to be debating the budget here on this floor next week. We are
going to have a great discussion about where our priorities are as
Americans and the things that are important to the financial standing
of the country and where we are going to make the kind of investments
that we need to make on behalf of this great country of ours.
It is also important to understand next week that is tied in with
this bill that we are going to also consider the Wounded Warriors bill
that is going to be coming up next week, which is 1538, for
consideration before this House that I must add that passed Armed
Services Committee this week with a unanimous vote, to make sure that
we correct some of the issues that are dealing with our veterans. And
we are going to deal with H.R. 1401, that is the Rail Security Act that
will be coming up next week.
This is serious business, and we have to be very serious about what
we do here. And I want to make sure that this vote will be seen as one
of the many.
Now, we had a vote, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, about a month ago that
folks criticized, the vote to say that we are against the escalation,
against the President's escalation of troops in Iraq. Seventeen
Republicans voted with the majority of the House Members on that.
Obviously, 15 of those Republicans decided to vote against the binding
resolution. Remember all those, oh, it's nonbinding, it really doesn't
mean anything; why are you doing this? Why are you spending a whole
week of debate? Even the President said, oh, it's nonbinding. And the
President said at that time a binding resolution will be coming which
will be the emergency supplemental. I want to know the House of
Representatives' stand on the binding resolution.
Well, that message is clear today where we stand. And I think that in
the Senate, with the passage of the legislation even has a shorter time
line passed the Appropriations Committee last night than what the House
is calling for, I think the issue of a time line and benchmarks are
going to be in that legislation when it goes to the President. Now, the
President is saying that he is going to veto it. Well, that is all a
part of his right to do so. But I think the American people and Members
of this Congress have to rise up. If the President is not willing to
lead us in a new direction as it relates to Iraq, then we may need to
lead the President. That is the reason why we have a democracy. That is
the reason why we have an executive branch and a legislative branch.
That is the reason why men and women who no longer can walk on two legs
now paid the price for us to have this democracy that we celebrate here
today, which I don't take
[[Page H3014]]
lightly. That is the reason why this specialist here, that covers the
page of Newsweek, paid with her legs. She is a patriot.
So if Members or anyone has a problem with the way our democracy is
working, then you have a problem with America. I am glad that I am free
and able to stand here on this floor to say that what took place here
today is a great testimonial to that democracy. And just because you
said that you are going to do one thing doesn't necessarily mean that
you have to follow through on it to show folks that you are tough.
You have folks coming to the floor saying, well, by passing this
emergency supplemental, it will waive the white flag. What white flag?
Okay. Continuing to do the same thing expecting different results? The
Speaker of the House took the well here earlier, Ms. Wasserman Schultz,
and said there have been three other escalations of troops in Iraq and
the same outcome is the fact that we lost more troops in the middle of
the battle, in the middle of a civil war, and that did not turn the
security situation around on the ground.
What did the Iraq Study Group say? They said that diplomacy is going
to be the number one key in dealing with this. What did Mr. Murtha say,
a decorated marine and chairman of the Defense Appropriations
Subcommittee? This is a diplomacy issue, and we need to make sure that
the Iraqi Government stands up not only on behalf of their country, but
for the region and provide the kind of leadership that they deserve.
For every day we are in Iraq, Mr. Speaker and Members, that is a day
that a U.S. city will not receive the kind of appropriations that it
needs to be able to provide the quality of life that the U.S. taxpayers
deserve. It is another day that we won't be able to fully implement all
the 9/11 recommendations and be able to provide the kind of funding to
secure the homeland. It means that what we pay now on the debt that the
Republican Congress and the Bush administration has given us, that we
will not have enough money to pay down on that debt, just on the debt
of the money that this country has borrowed, and which is more than
what we invest in education, more than what we invest in homeland
security, more than what we invest in veteran affairs.
So I think it is important that this paradigm shift that took place
here today is recognized as one of the great days of the U.S. House of
Representatives and moving in a new direction, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You know, there are students of history, our
esteemed Speaker in the Chair is a former college professor, and he
certainly knows that the origin of this country was one where our
Founding Fathers and the people that came before them that colonized
this nation were escaping from tyranny, essentially, were escaping so
that they could be free, so that they could be free from one individual
telling them how their lives would be run, so they could be free from
persecution about their religious choices that they made, so they could
be free from taxation without representation, so that they could be
free. And the reason that our democracy was set up as it is, with a
Commander in Chief, with an executive as well as a legislative and
judicial branch, was so that there would be a system of checks and
balances.
I am baffled by our friends on the other side of the aisle when they
seem to be saying that the Congress weighing in with binding
legislation, with benchmarks, and with a time line so that we can
ensure that there is not a never-ending commitment and a blank check
being written to folks fighting a civil war in another country, our
friends on the other side of the aisle seem to be saying that we should
only care about the opinion of one person, the person in the White
House, that the decisions that the executive of this Nation makes are
the only ones that matter.
Well, if you go back to the origin of this Nation, Mr. Meek, you go
back to the origin of this Nation, that is why our power was diffused.
That is why our Founding Fathers created three branches of government,
because they experienced the tyranny of one individual. They had
decisions forced on them by a king, by a monarch, who told them exactly
what was going to happen. And there was no place to turn, there was
nowhere to go. Well, the American people and our men and women in
uniform can turn to us because they have a Congress, they have a
representative body that can rescue them when the executive makes the
wrong decision, and that is what has happened here.
That is also what has happened with our veterans, Mr. Meek, because
it is incredibly important that we emphasize that, while we have made
some very important, significant and essential decisions about the
direction that we are going to continue to go in this war in Iraq, we
also made some significant decisions to help our veterans, the ones
that have already fought and have come back and have been left behind,
have been forgotten, the ones that this administration and the
Republican leadership before us had callous disregard for.
And we are always about third-party validation in the 30-Something
Working Group, so people just shouldn't take it from me or take it from
you. Let's just walk through what happened before and what has happened
leading up to today with the vote that we cast on this floor.
So, Mr. Speaker, before I got here, Mr. Meek, you were here, but
before I got here, this is right when you got here, in January 2003,
the Bush administration cut off veterans health care for 164,000
veterans. That is right in the Federal Register. It is documented on
January 17, 2003.
In March of 2003, the Republican budget, crafted then by this
Republican Congress at the time, cut $14 billion from veterans health
care that was passed by the Congress with 199 Democrats voting against
it.
In March of 2004, the Republican budget shortchanged veterans health
care by $1.5 billion, and that was passed by a Congress with 201
Democrats voting against it.
Fast forward to March of 2005. President Bush shortchanged veterans
health care by more than $2 billion in 2005 and cut veterans health
care by $14 billion over 5 years, and that had 201 Democrats voting
against it.
But that is not all. Mr. Speaker, in the summer of 2005, after
Democratic pressure, the Bush administration finally acknowledged, when
I got here, Mr. Speaker, the Republican administration was denying, Mr.
Meek, you remember this, they were denying there was a shortfall in the
Veterans Administration budget, repeatedly denying it. There were
articles about the dispute. The Veterans Administration insisted there
wasn't a problem; but finally in the summer of 2005, after constant
pressure from the Democrats in the minority, they finally had to
acknowledge that the fiscal 2006 shortfall in veterans health care
totaled $2.7 billion. We had to fight all summer to fix that.
{time} 1515
We had to do an emergency supplemental during that summer to make
sure that we could fund that shortfall.
I remember when we were doing the 30-Something Working Group during
that time, I remember Mr. Meek put the picture of the Secretary of the
Department of the Veterans Administration up on that table there
because what seemed important to the Secretary of the VA at the time
was that his picture be hanging in every building run by the VA, and he
was all the while denying there was a shortfall in his budget, and he
couldn't adequately provide for the veterans under his care; but he was
going to make darn sure his picture was hanging in every building.
In March of 2006, President Bush's budget cut veterans' funding by $6
billion over 5 years, and that was passed by a Republican-controlled
Congress.
Finally, after November 7, 2006, and the American people voted for a
new direction, the Democratic Congress increased the veterans' health
care budget by $3.6 billion in the joint funding resolution. And in the
supplemental legislation we passed, we provide an additional $1.7
billion to fund veterans' health care and to address the significant
problems we have at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, which were also
denied and not acknowledged until the Washington Post exposed the
travesty. We have since had heads roll, the Secretary of the Army, the
general that headed up Walter Reed and numerous
[[Page H3015]]
others. The only reason we had accountability there, finally, is
because we have a check and balance. We have oversight and hearings
going on. Congress is asking questions. We are not allowing one person
to make all of the decisions and impose them on the people that he
represents. Finally.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we have all worked very hard this
week to see the positive outcome of the legislation today.
As I started, I would like to close in my comments today by saying
that I am glad that the Members voted in the affirmative for this
legislation that passed. I think the American people will reflect on
this day, and historians will reflect on this day that this has been
the first day by the House of Representatives since the start of the
war in Iraq that there were true accountability measures in there.
There is reporting back to the Congress that the troops were protected
by the language that the Department of Defense used as relates to its
own policy of deploying troops, of sending troops back into theater on
another rotation of what they have to have. I think men and women in
uniform and their families will be forever appreciative of our action
here today.
It is like when you are working at a work site, not at headquarters,
you are working in a subsidiary, and you know there are certain
policies management is supposed to meet, but because nobody is
watching, they decide to waive the policy manual and have you work
overtime without being paid overtime, or have you working in conditions
that you should not be working in just to keep their numbers up so they
don't get in trouble with their bosses.
Well, with the emergency supplemental that we passed here today, we
have the backs of those workers. In this case, we have the backs of the
men and women who wear the uniform.
Furthermore, I think it is important for those who have served in a
battle zone that we have started down the track of making sure that we
provide the kind of funding so when they get back, they will be able to
get the counseling that they deserve. There is money in here to prevent
abuse as it relates to children and families when they get back to
military bases, and there is money to make sure that veterans don't
have to wait months to be able to see a specialist. I think it is very,
very important because there is a back end to this war, and there is a
reality to this war, and it is our responsibility to ensure there is
assistance to those who need it when they come back.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the American people for the role that
they have played during this whole war. This week here at the Capitol
we had people that were supporting the war, and against war but saying
we have to support our troops. And I commend both of them for
exercising their rights as Americans to be able to speak to their
government about their feelings. I am glad that we live in a country
that you can do that.
I am glad that Members did come to the floor. Some of them voted
their conscience, some voted partisanship, and some voted because it
was the right thing to do on behalf of this legislation.
As we move on with this process of bringing accountability to the war
in Iraq and bringing an end to the war in Iraq with troops on the
ground, that Members continue to pay attention to what our democracy is
all about. I commend the Speaker for standing in the wind, getting bugs
in her teeth on this issue and being tough on this issue even when we
were in the minority. Now we are in the majority, and I think the
American people are going to be very appreciative.
I thank the gentlewoman from Florida for hosting this hour today. It
is always an honor to come to the floor and talk about the actions of
today and look forward to tomorrow.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We have locked elbows for 12 years, Mr. Meek,
worked together and fought together. As we close, I was thinking as you
were closing that you and I, we were born 3 weeks apart. The Vietnam
war, when the Vietnam war was ending, we were less than 10 years old.
We were little kids. I don't remember much about how the Vietnam War
closed out, but that was the beginning part of the history lessons that
we had in public school.
I remember learning about, and I have read articles and read
textbooks and studied for exams learning about what happened to our men
and women in uniform when they came back from that war. As they came
back, they were spat upon and disrespected and unappreciated. We see
sadly the results of that with so many of the homeless and mentally
disabled veterans that scatter on our Mall and who stand up for the
rights of veterans.
I have to tell you, I am also proud of the American people because as
we grew up, and as we spent the balance of our lives until this point
without there being war, that is not how our troops are treated any
longer. The American people grew, and they learned, and that is what I
am incredibly proud of.
I am proud that our colleagues today did two things that are
important: We used our heads, and we listened with our hearts, and we
will be able to bring our men and women in uniform home from this war.
Until then, we will make sure that they have the funding that they
need, the equipment that they deserve, and the plan to get them home.
Mr. Speaker, the 30-Something Working Group is always proud to be
able to come to the floor at the pleasure of the Speaker of the House
and our leadership team. If anyone wants to contact us or see any of
the charts or see any of the information that we have talked about on
the floor this afternoon, they can e-mail us at
30SomethingD[email protected] or visit us at our Web site,
www.speaker.gov/30something.
____________________