[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 7467-7473]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 7468]]

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 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.

[[Page 7469]]

  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 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

[[Page 7470]]

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 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

[[Page 7471]]

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 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

[[Page 7472]]

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 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

[[Page 7473]]

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.

                          ____________________