Sheila Jackson Lee

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask to address the House for such time as I might consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas Reauthorization Act of 2005, H.R. 1285. And I offer my appreciation for the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), who is en route. And I would ask, as I know that the Chairman will ask, but I ask specifically that Mr. Rush's statement subsequently can be entered into the Record. I do appreciate the fact that we have worked with Mr. Rush for a number of years, and I am reminded of the passage of this legislation in 1999; so it is a long time that we have been focusing on this great need. The original Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas Act was a temporary visa program that expired at the end of September 20, 2004. H.R. 1285 would reauthorize and extend it for years. Let me cite for my colleagues some important information. According to a report released by the American Hospital Association, April 2006, U.S. hospitals need approximately 118,000 registered nurses to fill vacant positions nationwide. This translates into a national RN vacancy rate of 8.5 percent. The report titled ``The State of America's Hospitals: Taking the Pulse'' also found that 49 percent of hospital CEOs had more difficulty recruiting RNs in 2005 than in 2004. Since the origins of this bill, Mr. Speaker, we are going downward, if you will. According to the latest projections from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics published in the November of 2005 Monthly Labor Review, more than 1.2 million new and replacement nurses will be needed by 2014. Government analysts project that more than 703,000 new RN positions will be created through 2014, which will account for two-fifths of all new jobs in the health care center. This is a wake-up call for America. This legislation is attempting to respond to this crisis, but this is, frankly, a wake-up call for America. Where are the nursing schools? Where are the recruits? Where are the students, and how can we assist? I rose in support of the original Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas Act 5 years ago, and I support this. I had hoped, however, at that time that the nursing shortage would be temporary. Unfortunately, the shortage of nurses in the United States has gotten worse since then. As indicated, 5 years ago the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported on the results of a survey which indicated that there were roughly at that time 1.89 million nurses in the United States, but that we needed 2 million. Unfortunately, as I have said, we are spiraling downward. I hope this debate on the floor of the House will ignite nursing schools, States, and this Congress across America. As this legislation has been so diligently offered by our colleague from Illinois, who sees the nursing shortage and who has asked us to extend the time for this particular provision to bring in nurses, let us have a wake-up call to begin to train nurses out of America's high schools around the country. According to projections from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics that were published in November 2005, I indicated that we need 1.2 million new and replacement nurses, as stated earlier, in 2014. We need a growing enrollment in America's nursing schools. Part of the problem is that a shortage of nursing school facilities is restricting nursing program enrollments. According to the American Association of Colleges of Nursing's report on 2005-2006 Enrollment and Graduations in Baccalaureate and Graduate Programs in Nursing, U.S. nursing schools turned away 41,683 qualified applicants in 2005 due to insufficient faculty, clinical sites, classroom space, and budget constraints. Let me read to you just a paragraph from the American Nursing Association. My mother having been a nurse, I know many Members of Congress having come from the nursing profession and maybe our colleagues as well knowing nurses or working with nurses: ``Overall, the ANA,'' and this is back in 1999, ``believes that we need to address the root causes for the instability of the nursing workforce that has led to swings in the supply and demand of registered nurses. It is clear that overreliance on foreign-educated nurses by the hospital industry serves only to postpone real efforts to address the nursing workforce needs of the United States.'' This is not a criticism of this legislation. This is support for this legislation. But what it says is, as we welcome the nurses who will help our disadvantaged areas, let us track their great service, as we do with the J-1 visa that helps us in rural and urban areas with doctors who will serve in underserved areas who are coming into our country. Let us work to address this critical shortage. The Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas Act would provide more nurses in the disadvantaged areas, which is where the shortage is most critical. I support that enthusiastically. I urge Members to vote for H.R. 1285 because it is needed. It is needed now. I urge Members to vote to reauthorize and extend the Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas Act for another 3 years so that disadvantaged communities in our Nation do not suffer from lack of health care. I rise in support of the Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas Reauthorization Act of 2005, H.R. 1285. The original Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas Act was a temporary visa program that expired at the end of September 20, 2004. H.R. 1285 would reauthorize and extend it for 3 years. When I rose in support of the original Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas Act 5 years ago, I hoped that the nursing shortage would be temporary. Unfortunately, the shortage of nurses in the United States has gotten worse since then. Five years ago, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reported on the results of a survey which indicated that there were roughly 1.89 million nurses in the United States, but that we needed 2 million. According to projections from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics that were published in the November 2005 Monthly Labor Review, more than 1.2 million new and replacement nurses will be needed by 2014. Enrollment in American nursing schools is not growing quickly enough to meet this demand. Part of the problem is that a shortage of nursing school facilities is restricting nursing program enrollments. According to the American Association of Colleges of Nursing's report on 2005-2006 Enrollment and Graduations in Baccalaureate and Graduate Programs in Nursing, U.S. Nursing schools turned away 41,683 qualified applicants in 2005 due to insufficient faculty, clinical sites, classroom space, and budget constraints. The Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas Act would provide more nurses in disadvantaged areas, which is where the shortage is most critical. I urge you to vote for H.R. 1285 to reauthorize and extend the Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas Act for another 3 years. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings), who is on our Government Reform Committee and has worked very hard on these issues dealing with disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank the distinguished gentleman Mr. Cummings. Let me conclude by thanking Congressman Bobby Rush, who has been a strong advocate for providing and helping with nursing in underserved areas. And let me also conclude by indicating again my support by saying, Mr. Speaker, we have to balance what we do as we provide these valuable nurses through the extension of this bill in our areas, but we must also reach out and find a way to ensure that every young person, every individual, seeking an opportunity in our medical schools for physicians and as well nursing has that opportunity to serve America. With that, again, I ask for support of H.R. 1285.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of entering into a colloquy with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young) and Mr. Murtha from Pennsylvania. As indicated, I have an amendment that I was prepared to offer that asks for the same increase, 2.7 percent, that the Federal employees were getting for military personnel, which is now at 2.2 percent for the military. One of the few issues on which all Members of Congress agree is that our military personnel are cherished defenders of our Nation, that we value them highly, that we are proud of them. Every day they stand between the status quo and an ideal for a better future and put their lives on the line to realize this goal. The current pay increase for military personnel in this appropriations bill is 2.2 percent. This is a total of $84.9 billion for military personnel accounts, which is $1.9 billion greater than in fiscal year 2006, but it is $1.2 billion less than necessary, I believe, to help us get to 2.7 percent. We just passed the Transportation-Treasury-HUD appropriation bill, which provided a 2.7 percent pay increase for civilian Federal workers, as well as targeted pay increases for a variety of enlisted personnel and officer grades. We need to make the strong statement that we value our Armed Forces just as much as we do our civilian public servants. My amendment simply increases military personnel pay by 2.7 percent over fiscal year 2006. Every day we are reminded of the sacrifice our children and our neighbors are making. Over 2,500 soldiers have died in Iraq, and over 19,000 have been injured. Several years ago military personnel were paid 13 percent less than comparable civilian pay. This gap, however, has narrowed within the past few years to 6.5 percent in fiscal year 2005. And it is my goal to ensure that we will continue to narrow even more in the coming years. According to the fiscal year 2006 pay charts, after 4 months of service, newly enlisted individuals earn less than $2,000 per month even if they have completed ROTC courses or 2-year or 4-year college programs. Mr. Chairman, I know we can do better. I want to thank both Mr. Murtha and Mr. Young of Florida for being steadfast warriors on the battlefield of benefits for our military and for increasing the benefits to their families and to them. I would hope with the increases in experience and education and commission that we are seeing in our young military that we will close the civilian gap so that our young military, our reservists, National Guard, and others will not suffer this, if you will, incompatibility with their needs. Finally, a May 2004 survey of reservists from the Department of Defense found that 51 percent reported an earning loss, including 44 percent who reported a drop of 10 percent or more, and 21 percent reported an income loss of 20 percent or more. Although this may be due to differences in taxes and other factors, we need to make sure that those in Active Duty are not punished for serving. I hope, as we move through this process, the voices that will be heard will be Members like the chairman and ranking member of this subcommittee, that we must do more for our young men and women on the frontlines, our reservists, and our National Guard. I ask the gentlemen here today with me do they share my concerns to increase the salaries? And as well, I would hope that they would work with all of us to find a way to properly compensate and reward our brave men and women in uniform wherever they might be.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is an amendment that I would have offered, and I am delighted to not have to be able to offer it. And I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania and thank the gentleman from Florida. And in noting all of their work, we have worked together, and I am very appreciative and hopeful that we will be able to work together on this increase in salaries and compensation for our brave men and women.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. In the best of all worlds, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that the point of order could be waived; but at the same time as I discuss this amendment, I will acknowledge the leadership of the ranking member and the chairman of this subcommittee. Living near a veterans hospital, having the pleasure of having represented the veterans hospital in Houston, Texas, and living in the State of Texas and recognizing the facilities that we have dealing with the rehabilitation of injured persons including injured soldiers, I would say that this is one of the more important funding areas that this bill has an ability to address. Why? Because we realize that some 19,000 of the U.S. military and the number is growing have been injured. As we know, both Mr. Young and Mr. Murtha have steadily provided insight as they visited the troops in many of our military hospitals, including Bethesda and Walter Reed; and as I have had the opportunity to visit those hospitals, as well as the veterans hospital in Houston, the Michael DeBakey Hospital, which I had the pleasure of naming in honor of Dr. Michael DeBakey, one of the world's renowned heart surgeons, but also a veteran of World War II. This idea of funding more prosthetics research is recognizing the cherished defenders of our Nation. It is giving them a second chance at life. This amendment would add additional funding of $4 million in that area. We know that every day they stand between the status quo and an ideal for a better future. Might I just say that we have seen some of the more heinous injuries coming from the IEDs in Afghanistan and Iraq. U.S. troops injured in Iraq have required limb amputations at twice the rate of past wars. Bulletproof Kevlar vests protect soldiers' bodies, but not their limbs. I am exhilarated that the rate of death is the lowest of any war we have fought in our history, and I am sure that my colleagues join me in that. Yet we must continue the responsibility of rehabilitation. The good news is that prosthetic research by the military has generated their finest quality of prosthetic limbs, and we have seen and I have seen young men and women experience the joy of being able to walk again or to use their arms again. They, of course, must now readjust to life at home, they must relearn how to move, how to eat, how to walk, how to go grocery shopping, how to cook and how to adapt to the rest of their lives. The importance of prosthetic research is increasing in light of the ongoing hostilities in Iraq and the growing sophistication of the improvised explosive devices used against our troops. I recently visited Walter Reed Hospital, we met a number of wounded soldiers, many of whom were badly scarred physically, and needed to have the knowledge that the prosthetic devices would be available for them. So this amendment is simple. It attempts to place special emphasis on work that is ongoing and the importance of continuing both the research and the funding regarding prosthetic research. This will help the encreased utilization of prosthetics for our soldiers. Someone out there is listening, I hope, in order to know that we are concerned about the many issues that impacts these soldiers' lives; and one of those issues is to have the opportunity to walk again. Point of Order

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I would. I would like to yield to the distinguished ranking member to ask about his belief and concern about the importance of prosthetic research funding and continue to have the opportunity to work with him and Mr. Young on this issue.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I will take the time to discuss the point of order and not discuss it, simply to say this amendment's intention was to further highlight both the work already done by the ranking member and the subcommittee Chair, but also to express the need in my particular locality in Houston, Texas, where a number of these veterans are coming back needing prosthetics. Let me thank the ranking member and the chairman for the work already done and ask at this time, as the moneys will be continue to be emphasized and the need already known, I will look forward to working with both of them as these funds continue to increase to help the need that is existing for those needing prosthetics coming back from the front line. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Let me say that I started out this debate when I raised the question regarding the compensation of our soldiers with my appreciation for both Mr. Murtha and Mr. Young. I continue that appreciation because this is a very difficult challenge to appropriate funds for a myriad of issues on the Defense Department, including addressing questions of humanity, if you will, personnel issues, issues dealing with combat stress, medical issues dealing with the research on prosthetics. I rise today to discuss an issue that is enormously important to me. It might be that I am a child of the Vietnam War and many of my fellow contemporaries, my friends, male friends, went off to this war. Some did not come back. And I am reminded of the simple honor that was given the families as these fallen soldiers came home to the American soil. I am reminded also of the visit that President Ronald Reagan made when he went to Dover Air Force Base to receive the fallen soldiers from the explosion in Lebanon. What a moving expression to see that. As they first touched American soil, we were there to say thank you. So I rise to discuss an amendment that simply would have allowed the option of arrival ceremonies to be presented for our deceased military personnel returning to or departing from Ramstein Air Force Base or Dover Air Force Base. In particular, I think the focus would be for those coming to Dover Air Force Base where many families come to greet their loved ones. My amendment does not in any way or the amendment would not in any way have banned or eliminated the ban on media coverage of arrival ceremonies at this time on any returning individuals fallen who have come from overseas. By continuing the ban on media, I believe it appropriately addressed the question and the sensitive question of the privacy of families. But I do note that many come with the resolve that their fallen soldier is truly a hero. And because of that, they deserve an arrival ceremony with America acknowledging that that fallen soldier is truly a hero and it is all together fitting and proper that there be a pause and a remembrance when the remains of an American freedom fighter are returned to the land they gave their bodies to defend. As I mentioned, I am forever reminded of that fateful day that President Reagan went on behalf of a grateful Nation to Dover Air Force Base to welcome the marines who had fallen and who had been killed in Lebanon. Perhaps you recall also that President Jimmy Carter attended arrival ceremonies held at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware when the brave Americans who lost their lives in the Iran hostage rescue attempt were returned home. Similarly, the first President George H.W. Bush, the first President, participated in the arrival ceremony held for soldiers killed in Panama and Lebanon. To most Americans welcoming home, it is a fitting ceremony that the men and women who willingly risked all and sadly gave all that they had for this country, it is a simple statement of justice. And so I had hoped to be able to offer an amendment to be able to give guidance to the Defense Department on behalf of the families of the fallen and the families of the United States military using the degree of sensitivity that I think would be appropriate, keeping in place the media issue that we would be concerned about. I am hoping that as we move this bill that we will have the opportunity to be able to address this question. Before I yield to the gentleman, might I just cite, and I will yield to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania quickly, that it was Abraham Lincoln who said the loss is doubly great to the families of the fallen for they have laid so costly a sacrifice on the altar of freedom. I am hoping that we will have the opportunity to have these arrival ceremonies.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, before I explain my amendment, let me express my deep appreciation and gratitude to Chairman Young and Ranking Member Murtha for their hard work on this bill and for all the good work they have performed for so long on behalf of the Nation's soldiers, sailors, marines, air forces, and all who work to keep our Nation safe and free. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is simple and easy to understand. The amendment simply defunds that part of the Department of Defense policy that bars arrival ceremonies for deceased military personnel returning to Dover Air Force Base. My amendment does not--I repeat does not--lift the Defense Department ban on media coverage of arrival ceremonies or of any returning or departing deceased military personnel. By continuing the ban on media coverage but permitting arrival ceremonies my amendment accommodates and balances the interests of those families who wish to have their privacy respected and the Nation's interest in paying fitting tribute to their fallen heroes who have given the last full measure of devotion on foreign soil. It is altogether fitting and proper that there be a pause and a remembrance when the remains of American freedom fighters are returned to the land they gave their lives to defend. I remember when President Reagan, on behalf of a grateful Nation, traveled to Dover Air Force Base in 1983 to welcome home the fallen marines who had been killed in Lebanon. Perhaps you recall also that President Jimmy Carter attended arrival ceremonies held at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware when the brave Americans who lost their lives in the Iran hostage rescue attempt were returned home. Similarly, the first President Bush, George H.W. Bush, the 41st President, participated in the arrival ceremony held for the soldiers killed in Panama and Lebanon. To most Americans, welcoming home in a fitting ceremony the men and women who willingly risked all and, sadly, gave their all is only right. It is a matter of simple justice. I was then quite shocked to realize that there is now a policy guidance from the Defense Department that directs this government not to honor our soldiers when they come, having fallen in battle, back to the soil of the United States of America. Might I share with you the language. ``There will be no arrival ceremonies for or media coverage of deceased military personnel returning to or departing from Ramstein AB or Dover Air Force Base.'' What a shocking statement to make to the Nation, that when our soldiers fall in battle or when they lose their lives as members of the United States military, there is a blanket order, an across-the-board policy, affirmed by the administration in March 2003, not to pay honor and tribute to the fallen when they return. Mr. Chairman, I am not speaking of disrespecting family members who desire no such formal ceremonies. What I am suggesting is it should be an option and that there should be no blanket barrier that would, in fact, stop the honoring of these soldiers. I remind you of the words of Abe Lincoln, who said the loss is doubly great to the families of the fallen. For they have laid ``so costly a sacrifice on the altar of freedom.'' We owe them the respect of this honor, and a grateful Nation should be permitted to show its gratitude. But with this blanket order that suggests that there can be no arrival ceremony, I believe we denigrate, we deny the opportunity for honor. My colleagues will say that there are individual ceremonies and funerals and memorials. And they may be right. But I ask you as Americans and colleagues, how many times have we been able to mourn as a Nation the soldiers who are in the war on terror, fighting in places around the world? In these recent years, we have seen none. We have not honored any publicly. Yes, in just 2 weeks from now will be Independence Day, but yet we are denied the right to be able to show our gratitude. My amendment is intended to comfort the widow and the orphan as President Lincoln enjoined us to do. I believe many of them will find comfort in their hour of loss by the certain knowledge that a grateful Nation remembers. My amendment is on behalf of Americans. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that in reading this language, I struggled with the reason and the premise. Why can't we join together as patriots, respecting and recognizing the young lives that have been sacrificed, by the Reservists, the National Guard and all the service branches on behalf of this Nation? Why would you have this kind of prohibition with no basis, no premise, particularly when we saw flag- draped coffins being utilized after the tragedy of 9/11? Why would you not allow us as Americans to embrace the widows and orphans and be able to say to them, thank you. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Amendment #4 to H.R. 5631, as Reported (Defense Appropriations, 2007) Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following:

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on June 16 in Baghdad, Iraq, three soldiers who were at a checkpoint that they were manning came under enemy fire. All three soldiers were assigned to this checkpoint. Unfortunately, one soldier lost his life and two soldiers have been abducted. One of them happens to be from Texas. In the backdrop of the Iraq debate that we held last week, let me restate a plea that I have made on behalf of these soldiers and on behalf of the United States military. It is imperative that this sovereign government of Iraq clarify and make very clear that anyone who kidnaps or abducts an American soldier will be held liable. The prime minister needs to make a very pronounced statement about seeking information on the whereabouts of these soldiers, and then he must make it additionally clear that he will not hold to anyone receiving amnesty for killing an American soldier. It is time to transition both security and leadership to the Iraqi Government now.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask to address the House out of order.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I follow the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee. I thank him for his honesty, and I thank him for his eloquence. And I too, Mr. Duncan, wish that we could do this in a nonpartisan manner, and I would have hoped that we would have had every voice to have been able to be heard on this question. This is not a Democratic or Republican issue about the forces in Iraq, the freedom of this Nation, the right to defend our Nation, the right to tell the American people the truth that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the tragedy, the horrific, heinous act of 9/11. If you looked at the 19 terrorists, you might think that we need to be engaged in war with Saudi Arabia. But we are not. That is why this debate had such insignificance because all of us believe in our troops. More importantly, we believe in the families and the wounded that have come home. But I stand here today, Mr. Speaker, as someone who has just returned from Iraq, been to Iraq three times and Afghanistan; been to the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan where we truly believe Osama bin Laden hides. Do we remember that name? Someone that we allegedly have been in pursuit of for a number of years, a pursuit that has been stymied by the intrusion of the Iraq war. Rather than the global war on terror, we have misdirected and misconstrued the truth. I am reminded of the somber presentation that Secretary Powell made before the United Nations; all the world was in awe, all the world's eyes were turned to America, America with the high moral compass. Yes, if America said it, it must be true. And now we can't get more than one or two countries to follow our lead. It cries out for a change in direction. And so, Mr. Speaker, I hold up for the world to see and for America to see that these are the ones that we should be concerned about, those who have lost their lives in battle, 2,500 and growing, and the 19,000 casualties that are facing America. Are these the soldiers that we are going to say are cutting and running because we want a new direction that makes sense? Well, I believe in the Declaration of Independence when brave patriots said we all are created equal, with certain unalienable rights of life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And our soldiers deserve the right to pursue happiness. And America deserves the right of the right investment of its tax dollars. The global war on terror is where we should be confronting the evilness of the Osama bin Ladens and the others who are mounting efforts around the world to fight against us. The insurgency in Iraq, the foreign terrorists are a mere 10 percent or less. It is a civil war in Iraq between Sunnis and Shiia. And Mr. Murtha is right: there is no mission. The mission is complete. Our soldiers are victorious. Saddam Hussein is gone. We are not broom sweepers. We don't go around cleaning up IEDs. That is what their mission is. That is not a mission of freedom. And so Democrats today joined with more than one-third of this Congress to ask for a new direction. And I would venture to say that we would have more if there had not been the hard hand of the Republicans to scare their Members into not going against the tide. The war in Iraq has increased the burden on taxpayers. We are paying $300 million a day, a day, for this war. And yet we do not have monies for our enlisted personnel. Our soldiers' families are on food stamps, and veterans health care has been cut when soldiers are coming with catastrophic injuries, brain injuries that they have yet not diagnosed of how long they will be impacted by what we call closed-brain injuries. We asked the administration to tell the truth. We asked them to recognize the young soldiers that were kind enough to sign this scarf. Yes, they are true and the brave, and this is not a question of challenging the soldiers' bravery and duty. This is a burden on the policymakers like Secretary McNamara, who indicated that he was wrong in the Vietnam War. But, oh, what a price we paid: 50,000 dead in Vietnam and broken hearts and broken families and yet someone 20-some years later was willing to admit they were wrong. Well, I voted against this resolution and I voted because I never want it to be said that any war to which we send young soldiers into battle, the military into battle does not have the truth and the strength to withhold the understanding that America's freedom is at risk. I close, Mr. Speaker, by saying when I went to Iraq and visited many bases, one sailor took this off of his chest. It is a badge of honor I wear. We are not cutting and running. We are holding up the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. We want our soldiers to be able to pursue happiness, and we want a sovereign Iraq to protect its own nation.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I might offer that I am proudly a member of the Out of Iraq Caucus out of a duty and a sense of patriotism and love of my country. And so this is a very somber debate. And I remind my colleagues of the very tense moments of the presentation of Secretary Powell before the United Nations. All of us were in a sense of awe, listening to the devastating evidence of why we should go to Iraq. So I come to this podium today with a very heavy heart because we are constrained, not Members of Congress, we are of no relevance, but the American people are constrained in not allowing a debate or dissent. That is what we are showing here today, that we can have no dissent, we can have no recognition that Democrats and others, we do have a plan. And so, on the birthday of the Army, I want to salute the Army. Mr. Murtha, I want to salute you for your service and your plan. And I want to salute all of the United States military. And might I say that our soldiers are doing their job. They have done their job. And out of doing their job, the casualties are some 19,000, and today, I am very sad to say that 2,500 of them are now dead. And so I come with a heavy heart to suggest that there are myths that we need to overcome. And one of them is that there is something called ``cut and run.'' It is not ``cut and run.'' It is the opportunity of involvement, debate and patriotism, a belief that we can put forward a plan that the American people will believe in. The Bush Iraq policy has harmed the United States military, and I might say that I am glad to stand with a retired Marine Lieutenant General, Gregory Newbold, who says, ``my sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and a swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions or bury the results.'' And so I come again to suggest that no, there is no ``cut and run.'' There is reality. A Pentagon commission study concluded that the Army cannot maintain its current pace of operation in Iraq without doing permanent damage to the quality of the force. We realize that the large and extended deployment of the National Guard units overseas has undermined the ability of the United States to deal with terrorist attacks or natural disasters. We realize that resources are being diverted and, therefore, we are not able to fight the global war on terror. I don't want my friends to pigeonhole us. We want a debate and a plan to save lives, and we want a free, independent and democratic Iraq. That can happen with a new change, a new day, Democrats and others, who believe in leading this country to a new future. I don't want the same old plan, and I am not ashamed of saying so. That is why I am here to open the doors to dissent, tell the American people to come marching into the United States Congress. Don't let us talk for you. You want redeployment. You want the troops out. You don't believe the Democrats believe in ``cut and run.'' You understand that the General, Lieutenant General, has said we are careful about this war. Come home. Murtha plan, the Out of Iraq Caucus is proud of our patriotic stand. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I rise to speak on H.R. 861, a resolution which declares that the ``United States will prevail in the Global War on Terrorism.'' I believe that it is the resolve of all Members of this House and of all Americans. But to prevail in the global war on terrorism, we must remain focused on the global war on terrorism, and not allow ourselves to be diverted or distracted. Unfortunately, we have been distracted from waging a full-scale, all- out global war on terrorism by the President's fateful decision to go to war in Iraq. Before and after 9/11, Iraq was not a part of the global war on terror, much less the central front. It only became so when the President launched his ill-advised preemptive attack. I am proud to be among the majority of House Democrats who voted against the Resolution Authorizing the Use of Military Force, AUMF, in 2002, which authorized the President to use military force to disarm Iraq of its alleged weapons of mass destruction, WMD. I voted against going to war in Iraq because I thought it a diversion from the important task facing the Nation and that was winning the global war on terror. History has shown that we were right. The ill-advised rush to war in Iraq has not only been a diversion from the war on terror but a strategic disaster of epic proportions. As Thomas Jefferson would say, to prove this let facts be submitted to a candid world. (I) The Bush Iraq Policy Has Harmed the U.S. Military We just learned today the sad news that the 2,500th soldier has been killed in Iraq. More than 19,000 others have been wounded. The Bush administration's open-ended commitment of U.S. troops to Iraq has weakened the U.S. Army, the Army National Guard, and the Army Reserves. The extended deployments in Iraq have eroded U.S. ground forces and overall military strength. A Pentagon-commissioned study concluded that the Army cannot maintain its current pace of operations in Iraq without doing permanent damage to the quality of the force. So more than 3 years of a continuous deployment of U.S. troops to Iraq has: Contributed to serious problems with recruitment, with the U.S. Army missing its recruitment targets last year; Forced the Army to lower its standards for military recruits; and Led to military equipment shortages that hamper the ability of U.S. ground forces to do their job in Iraq and around the world. The large and extended deployment of National Guard units overseas has undermined the ability of the United States to deal with terrorist attacks or natural disasters. For example, State officials in Louisiana and Mississippi struggled to overcome the absence of National Guard members from their States in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. In Louisiana, about 100 of the National Guard's high-water vehicles remain abroad--even as the State continues to rebuild from Hurricane Katrina. Coastal North Carolina is missing nearly half its Humvee fleet, and Guard officials there say shortages have forced the State to pool equipment from different units into one pot of hurricane supplies. In addition, the equipment the Guard needs to help in the aftermath of natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina is in shorter supply because the gear is in use in combat zones, is battle-damaged, or has been loaned to cover gaps in other units. (1) War in Iraq has diverted resources and attention from other fronts in the fight against global terrorist networks. The killing of Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi last week was a major success for U.S. troops, but it is not likely to diminish Iraq's insurgency. Iraqis make up 90 percent of Iraq's insurgency, unlike foreign fighters like Zarqawi, and a primary motivation for Iraq's insurgency is the U.S. troop presence. Even after the Samarra shrine attack in February threatened to push Iraq into all-out sectarian civil war, the vast majority of attacks still target U.S. forces. Outside of Iraq, the Bush administration has failed to present a realistic strategy for countering the threat posed by the global terror networks. In a recent survey of more than 100 of America's leading foreign policy experts conducted by Foreign Policy magazine and the Center for American Progress, eight in 10--84 percent--do not think that the United States is winning the war on terror. The war in Iraq has not helped America win the broader fight against global terrorists. Instead: By invading Iraq without a realistic plan to stabilize the country, thei Bush administration created a new terrorist haven where none had previously existed. By maintaining an open-ended military presence in Iraq, the Bush administration is presenting U.S. terrorist enemies with a recruitment tool and rallying cry for organizing attacks against the U.S. and its allies. According to the National Counter-Terrorism Center, the number of large-scale terrorist attacks in Iraq increased by over 100 between 2004 and 2005, with a total 8,299 civilians killed in 2005. Osama bin Laden remains at large and Al Qaeda offshoots proliferate. By diverting resources and attention from Afghanistan to an unnecessary war of choice in Iraq in 2003, the Bush administration has left Afghanistan exposed to a resurgence of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. The United States needs to complete the mission in Afghanistan and cannot do it with so many troops bogged down in Iraq. By focusing so many U.S. resources on Iraq, the Bush administration has taken its eye off the ball in places like Somalia, which was overrun by Islamist militias tied to Al Qaeda last week. (2) The War in Iraq has increased the burden on U.S. taxpayers without stabilizing Iraq or making Americans safer. Over the last 3 years, the United States has spent more than $300 billion in Iraq, yet the investment has failed to stabilize Iraq or improve the overall quality of life for most Iraqis. According to the Congressional Research Service, total assistance to Iraq thus far is roughly equivalent to total assistance, adjusted for inflation, provided to Germany--and almost double that provided to Japan from 1946 to 1952. Yet on key metrics like oil production, Iraq has failed to advance beyond pre-war levels, and quality of life indicators remain dismal: Oil production is below pre-war levels--2.6 million barrels per day in 2003 vs. 2.1 million barrels per day in May 2006; The majority of water sector projects and health care clinics planned in 2003 remain not completed, despite spending hundreds of millions of dollars; One in three Iraqi children is malnourished and underweight, according to the United Nations Children's Fund. Rather than a record of progress and achievement, the Bush administration's record is one of corruption and waste: $8.8 billion given to Iraqi ministries by the Coalition Provisional Authority, CPA, remains unaccounted for, according to the Congressional Research Service; Iraqi Defense Ministry officials spent $1 billion on questionable arms purchases; The Interior Ministry has at least 1,100 ghost employees, costing $1.3 million a month. In short, we have no strategy, no support from allies or friends in the region, a nascent civil war in the country we are supposed to be helping, an overstretched military, a misdirected counterterrorism effort, and a massive diversion of funds in support of a failed effort. (II) Responding to Administration Myths and Fantasies The Bush administration and its rubber-stamp Republican allies in the House have politicized national security in the past. They have used national security as a wedge issue to divide the country and push for policies that have not made Americans safer. But today a majority of Americans are now skeptical about the Bush administration's Iraq policy. Myth 1: Democrats want to quit while we are ahead and the Iraqis are just getting started. Conservatives argue that Democrats who criticize and offer alternatives are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, retreating just as the Iraqi Government needs the most help. Fact: The time has come for the United States to give Iraqis the incentive to stand on their own two feet and take control of their own affairs. In a few short months, the U.S. military involvement in Iraq will be longer than it took the United States to win World War II. The open-ended commitment of U.S. troops fuels as much as it retards the insurgency and civil conflict in Iraq. Nearly 9 in 10 Iraqis approve a time line for U.S. withdrawal, and 70 percent of the Iraqi public supports the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces by the end of 2007. A growing number of Iraqis, including the new prime minister, are saying that Americans must begin to leave. U.S. troops have done their share. By getting rid of Saddam Hussein, they have given Iraqis an historic opportunity to take charge of their destiny. By fostering the birth of the constitution and the holding of elections, they have assisted in the building of a new democracy. They have trained more than a quarter of a million Iraqi security forces. It would be self-defeating for the United States to want Iraq to succeed more than Iraqis do. Myth 2: Democrats offer only ``cut and run'' and ``retreat and defeat.'' Facts: Belittling opponents will not divert attention from a failed policy. Staying the course and offering a vague and open-ended commitment of U.S. troops gives Iraqis a blank check and a veto of America's national security. The future of Iraq cannot be more sacred to Americans than to Iraqis. Responsible redeployment offers Iraqis a chance to take responsibility for their political and security future after we have already aided in the creation of a new constitution, the staging of two elections, and the training of a quarter of a million security forces. Myth 3: Democrats who raise questions and oppose the Bush Iraq policy are unpatriotic. Over the past 3 years, the Bush administration has questioned the patriotism of its critics. Facts: Our country's democratic system requires the active involvement of Congress on key policy questions--particularly at a time of war. The United States has a strong tradition of its Congress asking tough questions. During a time of war, including the hearings organized by Democratic Senators like Senator Harry Truman during World War II and Senator William Fulbright during Vietnam, even though the White House was controlled by Democrats. It is the patriotic duty of Members of Congress to hold the executive branch accountable, especially during a time of war. Two prominent Vietnam war veterans, Republican Chuck Hagel and Democrat John Murtha, have recently argued that it is unpatriotic not to raise questions in a time of war. America suffers when Congress and the public are silent. Myth 4: Democrats reject the Bush administration's efforts to advance freedom. Facts: The Bush plan for Iraq is solidly grounded in a flawed view of combating terrorism, arguing that promoting a narrow vision of democracy will crowd out and defeat terrorists. The United States must and should support real democratic transitions around the world. But the Bush administration's naive approach to democracy promotion--narrowly focused on elections--has failed by giving terrorist organizations an opening to seize the reins of power, as seen by the Hamas victory in the Palestinian elections earlier this year. Terrorists have been exploiting the Bush administration's flawed and narrow strategy focused on the most ostensible images of democracy, like purple fingers in elections. Despite impressive gains in Iraq's political transition, the country remains in the very early and fragile stages of a long-term process of building a real democracy. Contrary to the rhetoric put forth by the Bush administration, Iraqis do not live in freedom, according to Freedom House, which measures trends in political rights and civil liberties over the past three decades. The rights of women and minorities are not protected; the rule of law is honored more in the breach than the observance; and political violence remains rampant. Despite much work left undone, the Bush administration has cut funding for programs to support freedom and democracy in Iraq this year. Myth 5: Democrats who criticize the Bush policy hurt the morale of the troops. The Bush administration and its conservative allies have said that offering criticisms and concrete policy alternatives on Iraq hurts the morale of U.S. troops. Facts: There is no evidence that debate at home has any effect at all on the morale of troops. But other factors directly impact the lives of U.S. troops and morale--including going to war without the equipment and armor, not having a realistic strategy for Iraq and not taking care of the troops after they come home. Not equipping the troops. When asked by a soldier in the field why U.S. troops did not have the right armor for their vehicles, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, ``As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want.'' Iraq was a war of choice, and the Bush administration had time to get ready. Not taking care of the troops when they come home. The Bush administration has not developed policies to take care of the troops when they return from battle. Health care has proven inadequate, and wounded veterans have been hounded by debt collectors because of inefficiencies in the Pentagon's administrative systems. Myth 6: Democrats who oppose the Bush Iraq policy are ignoring and not listening to the generals. Facts: It is the Bush administration that has failed to listen to top U.S. generals before and during the invasion by not sending enough troops to stabilize the country. It is Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld who has constrained free expression in the military by firing or forcing out those who disagree. Nonetheless, even the current commanding officers argue that the United States needs to take realistic steps to reduce its military presence to remove the fuel that fires the insurgency. For example, in October 2005, GEN John Abizaid, the commander of Central Command Forces, argued that the United States must reduce its ``military footprint'' in Iraq and the region as a means to create more stability, but President Bush has continued to stick with a ``stay the course'' message. Myth 7: Democrats who criticize the Bush Iraq policy are helping the terrorists and giving them what they want. The Bush administration has argued that questioning its plan emboldens America's terrorist enemies, an unconstitutional argument aimed solely at shutting off real debate at home. Harkening back to 2002, when Bush officials warned that people should ``watch what they say,'' President Bush and top officials in his administration have warned against ``irresponsible'' debate to limit and control democratic political debate at home, even while the Bush administration purports to advance democracy abroad. Facts: Bush policies at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib do more to undermine our place in the world than any words spoken by administration critics. The Bush administration policies that coerce rather than create cooperation through dialogue and common purpose undermine how others view us. A new poll by the Pew Research Center finds that America's image has slipped further, and global support has declined for the U.S.-led war on terrorism. Myth 8: Democrats prefer a world with Saddam Hussein still in charge of Iraq. Facts: Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator, and it is a good thing that he is no longer in power. But that is not the key question today. The key question is: Where is Iraq now, and where does it go from here? And the many mistakes made by the Bush administration--including sending in too few troops to secure the country and invading without a clear and realistic plan for Iraq's reconstruction--have made the situation in Iraq much worse off than it should have been. Iraq has become a failing state and is suffering from several major internal conflicts--in large part the consequence of the Bush administration's failure to plan for the post-war situation. And moving forward requires Iraqis, not Americans, to be in charge of the future. Myth 9: Democrats just want to criticize and politicize Iraq and do not have plans about what to do. Facts: This is simply not true. A growing number of leading Democrats and other progressive leaders have offered sensible alternative visions about what the United States should do next to set the right course in Iraq. Nearly all progressive plans recognize that the United States must intensify its political and diplomatic efforts in Iraq and that the commitment of U.S. troops to Iraq should not be permanent or open-ended. Conclusion Mr. Chairman, I close by quoting from the Declaration of Independence and the motto of the U.S. Army, which marks its 231st anniversary today. It may seem odd to quote the two together. But I do so because real patriots have courage--courage to face the truth and the courage to speak truth even when it is unpopular. The Declaration of Independence, with its affirmation of the inalienable human rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness gave patriots the courage to fight for a cause that was just but at the time thought by most to be unattainable. A motto of the U.S. Army is ``We will not falter, we will not fail.'' The war in Iraq does not help us in the global war on terror. There are only two directions to take in Iraq: President Bush's plan of staying the course and letting a future President clean up the mess, or the Murtha plan to change the direction of that course. I stand with Representative Murtha in calling for the redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq to make our country safer, our military stronger, and the region more stable. I support the Murtha plan. It is the only plan for success in Iraq that is worthy of the sacrifices made by our troops. And I support a plan for greater coalition support for Iraq as it moves to protecting itself as a soverign nation. Our troops in Iraq have never faltered and they have never failed. They were never defeated in battle. They won the war they were sent to fight. They completed their mission. They performed magnificently. Well done. Well done. Well done. Our troops have earned the right to return home and be reunited with their families and loved ones. Now is not the time for us in Congress to falter or fail. Now is the time to embrace a plan for our troops in Iraq that offers a chance of success. We need a plan that will work. There is only one such plan. It is the Murtha plan that allows for redeployment of our troops as soon as practicable and allows for redeployment of troops at the perimeter of Iraq to be used in time of crisis. This is a plan that will work. Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order and address the House for 5 minutes.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it has been a day of great importance, and tomorrow, we will conclude this debate on Iraq. When I spoke earlier today, I mentioned that the dilemma that we have is that although there has been a debate, one would wonder, with such an important topic, why the process did not allow the American people to have alternatives to the present resolution on the floor and why we were so constrained that there could not be a definitive plan that speaks to the concern of the American people, the families of soldiers and veterans, and that is, to discuss fully, without partisan rhetoric, the idea of redeployment and the opportunity for our soldiers to return home. Now, 2 years or so ago, I had, and offered, to this administration a concept that I believe would not have placed us where we are today. I rose today to say that I support the Murtha plan and resolution, which clearly provides an opportunity for redeployment as soon as practicable. It is not the cut-and-run theory. It is a theory that we respect the idea of the military fighting for our freedom and respect the fact that the military's mission has been completed. Having just come back from Iraq myself, and been there three times and as well to Afghanistan, I know that the boots on the ground, the leadership on the ground is, by any means, any definition, the most excellent military in the world. We thank them. We thank their families. We thank the enlisted. We thank the Reservists, we thank the National Guard and any others, civilians who are serving on those front lines. But we are the policy-makers, and we owe them not just a debt of gratitude. So, tomorrow, in protest for no plan, I will be voting ``no'' on the resolution. I do so without any shame or any conceding to accusations of not being patriotic. My patriotism is exhibited by my dissent and the dissent of the American people asking us to do something, to create a plan that tracks the sovereignty of Iraq, gives them the opportunity to move toward their own freedom, to protect themselves through the Iraqi National Army and the Iraqi National Police. Let me just simply say to the American people that what we are discussing today are these soldiers who have been willing to put their lives on the front line. These are husbands and wives and aunts and uncles and cousins. These are mothers and fathers. These are our neighbors. These are, in fact, our brothers and sisters. These are Americans, individuals who have put themselves on the front line. We, as policy-makers, should not cut and run on them. I would just say to my colleagues that if we are to be patriotic, then we should do it by words and not by deeds. So I would argue that what we have done to the soldier is to talk and not act. We have, in fact, devastated the United States Army, therefore, disallowing or at least causing them to be diminished and taking and causing us to put them in a position where it will take years for them to rebuild themselves. We have undermined the military by not equipping the troops. When asked by a soldier in the field why U.S. troops did not have the right armor for their vehicles, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, as you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want. What a callous, senseless thing to say, to throw our Army into harm's way, and careless about whether they are protected or have the armor to protect themselves, allowing families and parents to get their hard-earned pennies to send flak jackets to their children and then not taking care of our troops when they come home. The Bush administration has not developed policies to take care of the thousands, 19,000 casualties who are injured, 2,500 of course who died, the 2,500 today. Health care has proven inadequate, and wounded veterans have been hounded by debt collectors because of inefficiencies in the Pentagon's administrative expenses. Mr. Speaker, this is not long enough for the catastrophic and necessity of the debate or the changes that are needed in order to change the direction of Iraq. I, too, applaud the ending of Zarqawi's leadership of terrorism in the world, but that is not the end of the story, and we know that insurgency in Iraq is only 10 percent of the violence. The violence is between Shiite and Sunni and those young people who believe they can kill Americans with impunity and with immunity. So I would simply say that I hope tomorrow there will be a metamorphical change. I hope someone will shine the light on this body. I hope we will rise with courage to say that there must be a new direction. I hope we will discard this senseless resolution that simply wants to make partisan or make a partisan battle about who supports the troops and who does not. We cannot stay the course. Richard Nixon knew that we could not stay the course in Vietnam, and he changed the course of direction. It is not anti-patriotic to be able to stand up against the wind of the majority, to be able to say that the dissenting Americans need to be heard, and if we are heard, it will be for the betterment of this Nation and the betterment of this world. Then we can begin to fight the global war on terror. Then we can be more successful. Then we can form the coalition that we need to weed out the terrorists and to truly create for our children a better world. I hope tomorrow we will shed the light on this place and change direction in the Iraq War.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I thank the gentleman very much for acknowledging the importance of this issue, and that it impacts many communities in addition to Houston and the district that I represent. With that in mind, I hope we will be able to march towards efforts both with the authorizers and the subcommittee to be able to work on this. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank you, Mr. Delahunt. I am honored to be here with my distinguished colleagues from Ohio and from Florida and from Massachusetts because I think you represent the embodiment of the outcry of the American people. We are in these Chambers but we cannot hear the voice of either rage, confusion or just simply asking why; and, frankly, what you have asked is whether or not we have three distinct branches of government, the executive, the judiciary and, of course, the legislature. Absolutely. Because if you watched this Congress in the hands of Democrats some years ago, we proceeded with the Watergate hearings. We proceeded with Koreagate and Irangate, giving the American people the opportunity to see our wounds, to see our failures and to try and correct them. Is it not interesting that in 1991, in the first Iraq War, I understand we were not here, they debated this question for 2, 3 days, hours, so that Members, no matter whether Republican or Democrat, could speak on behalf of the American people. There were three and four resolutions. People expressed themselves passionately, and therefore, they were able at the end of the vote to hold themselves accountable and to hold, of course, the Executive accountable: At that time, President Bush I. Here we come tomorrow, and I have heard the map that shows that we are hostage as it relates to our deficit. Tomorrow, we come with a mere 5 hours. Somebody says there is a picnic that is going on that may even break through. I think it is important to ask that question because as you list the array of generals, let me share this with you. I do not know how we can face the American people and not give credence to men and women who have bars of bravery on their chest, some wounded, some because of their service, who had nothing to gain by going against the Commander in Chief. In fact, one said I was about to become a two-star and three-star general. I was a one-star, I walked away. And the reason why they walked away is because one of their issues is that the military is depleted, that we will have years of rebuilding the United States military, which will take money, and this is not only physical and tangible things, tanks, arms, clothing, but it is a human capital that will have to be rebuilt. How many of us understand that we have depleted our battalions that are supposed to be in Kuwait? We are down to one. These are the American mothers and fathers, wives and husbands, who are looking to this government to protect their young people, their husbands, their wives, their National Guard, their Reservists, that we have depleted them. I loved Mr. Meek in his anecdote, but it is like you run your shoes down. You do not have a heel and you are almost walking on the ground because you have got holes in it. That is, unfortunately, the military that we all love. So I would say to you in answer to that question, and I thank you for allowing me to share that, the ignoring of the sectarian violence, the Shiias and the Sunnis, the Kurds are holding ground somewhere else. They do not want anybody to bother them. The fact that we still have our soldiers there doing nothing but sweeping up IEDs, that is not a mission of the United States military to sweep up IEDs. I hate land mines. I hate IEDs. Their mission is to finish, and until we hold this Congress accountable to do its job of oversight, until we hold the White House accountable to do its job, until we stop being embarrassed, until we stop losing our nerve, we will not.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. How many of those generals are there? I am looking. Is it about nine or ten? Looks like it is about eight.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. We simply want to say we are prepared to roll up our sleeves. Nothing is guaranteed. We will be working real hard. And if the Democrats achieve leadership in November, we will have the roll-up-the-sleeve attitude, the open-door attitude, the oversight attitude, and what is best for the American people.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I didn't think we would see this. I hope the American people who are listening understand that this is serious. And we are not here trying to cast aspersions, but this is serious on behalf of the American people. I hope as Democrats take leadership on these issues, we have a chance to change lives.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. None.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I just want to make this brief point, but you have hammered it on. What you are saying is that this Congress is going to be action oriented. We are going to act. We are going to do. We are going to not come in and busy ourselves with the special interests. What we are going to be doing is allowing generals to come in. We are going to be talking about, if you will, a new mission in Iraq, and this funding that has now almost eliminated any resources for any other domestic need, with the $10 billion a month we are spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. We are going to be action oriented. And I just want to close on this point, because you have laid out not only the agenda of Democrats but our passion. Democrats are going to be focused on the needs of Americans. We are not going to be with the lights out, the doors closed, and the shutters drawn. We are going to be opening our hearing rooms and listening to educators. We are going to be listening to working men and women who are asking why they are not getting a tax cut. We are going to be listening to college students about Pell Grants. And you know what else? In conclusion, we are going to do something that I hope we will be the champions of: The minimum wage. Because right now it is a disgrace that we are allowing Americans to make $5.15, which is the lowest minimum wage in 50 years. So I say to you, thank you for laying out the agenda and letting the American people know that we are going to go in here waving the flags on their behalf and the minimum wage is going to be one of our number one items to do.

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Well, Mr. Ryan, if I might just for a moment ask you to yield. What are we doing right now in the United States Congress? We are going through the appropriations process. Every single appropriation bill that comes we are having to tell our communities back home, you can't finish not the road to nowhere but the road this community needs; you can't get rail; you can't fix Amtrak. They are telling us that the community health clinics that we have all bought into and that have some value, the quasi-public health clinics that so many people are excited about, we can't fund them. We can't provide new monies for the Leave No Child Behind, if you ever invested in that at all. We can't provide any monies for alternative research in energy for our universities. And we can't provide them any dollars partly because of this misdirected mission with young people dying in Iraq and not being able to refocus, and then of course the fact that this deficit has continued to grow. I just want to say, reiterate once again the sadness of how many foreign nations own the United States now.