Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

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. They also have to achieve political and military benchmarks. By October 1, 2007, the President has to certify that Iraqis have achieved political and military benchmarks, and if he doesn't provide that certification, then U.S. forces will begin immediate deployment completed by March 2008. There are steps toward progress that the Iraqi leadership must take or we are not going to continue to put our men and women in harm's way, and we shouldn't. And, finally, we need to eventually end our participation in this war. Our commitment there should be finite, not open-ended. The President should not have a blank check, and this legislation that we passed today ensures that. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and our entire Democratic leadership for the opportunity for the 30-Something Working Group to once again come to the floor and talk about the priorities of the Democratic Caucus and the new direction for America that we are humbled to be able to lead this country in. On November 7 of last year, the American people spoke loudly and clearly, Mr. Speaker, that it was imperative that we move this Nation in a new direction on a variety of issues, not the least of which is the direction that we are going in in this war in Iraq. And I am so proud today to be able to stand here knowing that the vote that I cast personally and that the 217 other Members that passed that legislation off this floor this afternoon cast so that we can now finally begin to ensure that our troops will have the armor that they need, the armor and equipment that they need, a plan to get them home most importantly, and to ensure that we can begin to transition in Iraq so that the Iraqi people will be able to stand on their own, run their democracy and make sure that they can focus on solving the civil war and the strife that is going on in the midst of their country, because that is essentially what we have been doing for them. What we have been doing for them that we can no longer continue to do is inserting ourselves in the middle of their chaos without plans to be able to withdraw, without a single brigade of their army completely trained to stand on their own. It is time and the American people have insisted that it is time to begin to move in the direction where we can shift the mission from combat to training, where we can focus our troops that will remain there by the end of next year on counterterrorism, on putting down the insurgency and on making sure that the Iraqi troops are well trained so that they can continue to move forward with their experiment in democracy. That is what the legislation that we passed today will do, and I am so proud of our caucus and of our colleagues and of our leadership for the work that we have done together, for the unity that we showed, for the courage that so many of our colleagues showed, Mr. Speaker. We have a very diverse caucus, a very diverse group of Democratic Members who for a variety of reasons, for a variety of soul searching were able to come together from all of the different facets of the philosophical spectrum, to come together today and pass this extremely important legislation. Mr. Speaker, I have been in public office for 14 years. I have only served in the U.S. House of Representatives for 2 years, but that was one of the most emotional experiences and the most difficult experiences that I know I have gone through. And I cast that vote knowing that I had the support of my constituents, knowing and confident that my constituents want to make sure that we can bring those American troops home. I had an opportunity to travel and spend some time with our troops at Walter Reed Army Medical Center a few weeks ago before we voted on the resolution opposing the President's escalation proposal. I have said this the last few times we have talked about this on the floor. I had a chance to speak to a number of different troops individually. One young man who has stayed with me, and I think I've thought about him and his family every single day since then. As a mom with little kids, I have 7-year-old twins and a 3-year-old little girl. Almost every major vote I cast, I cast with them in mind. There is another generation of Americans who we are going to protect from that vote that we cast today. And this young man who I had a chance to meet with, he had just gotten home from his third tour of duty. Each was a year. His third tour and his 6-year-old little boy was in the room along with his wife and his little boy was so excited and just full of vibrancy and life. He shook my hand. It was just so neat to be able to talk to him. He told me that his daddy was finally going to be coming home for good, forever, in August. He had come down with a really inexplicable illness and was convalescing at Walter Reed. And when the young man told me that he had been through his third tour of duty and that his boy was 6, it was not lost on me that he had missed half of his son's life, a 6- year-old little boy with his dad gone for 3 separate years. That is just unacceptable. That is not what the procedures are supposed to require of our men and women in uniform. There is supposed to be at least 365 days of noncombat duty in between tours. The legislation that we passed today will ensure that that will happen. The legislation that we passed today will ensure that our troops have the equipment that they need. It will ensure that $1.7 billion in funding will provide the health care that our veterans need. I listened to a lot of the speeches on the floor, almost all of them, today. What we continually heard from our friends on the other side of the aisle was almost as if maybe they didn't read the bill, maybe they weren't paying attention, but more likely they were just being political. I heard comments about how our legislation didn't provide the equipment for the troops, when up until now it is this President, with the acknowledgment of the military leadership, that has sent our troops into harm's way without the proper training. We have the least trained, least prepared Army that we have ever had at this point, spread as thin as they possibly could be spread, and then they have the nerve on the other side of the aisle to suggest that it is us that is not providing the protection for our troops. That is ludicrous. I'm not sure whether they're not listening to their constituents when they're home or not having a chance like I did and like I know you have to sit down with troops who have been in the line of duty. Maybe they're listening with different ears or maybe more likely they're listening with a different heart, because the heart that I listened with knows that we can't allow the pointless loss of human life anymore, not for our men and women in uniform and not for the Iraqi people who are also losing their lives in the midst of chaos. If we are going to focus on the war on terror, we should be shifting our approach to the war in Afghanistan, where we provide a significant infusion of funding, badly needed funding so that we can turn Afghanistan back around. If you recall, Mr. Speaker, after the tragedy of 9/11 and we initially went in to respond to that tragedy, to stand up for America, we went into Afghanistan and we got rid of the Taliban and we made sure that we could restore human rights in that country and we could restore the rights of women to go to school and to walk in public without a burqa and to really shine the light of freedom on a country that lived in darkness for decades. Instead, this President and this Republican leadership shifted our focus, lost our purpose, lost their way, or gave up is really a better way to put it, and invaded Iraq under false pretenses, provided this Congress, many of our colleagues who voted ``yes'' relying on the information from this administration that it was out of necessity. This wasn't a war of necessity. This was a war of choice. We don't have the luxury of going into wars of choice, Mr. Speaker, when we have wars of necessity like Afghanistan, when we have a situation like we have in Iran, where we have a leader in that country who has threatened the very existence of the State of Israel, our closest ally in the Middle East, where we have nations in the Middle East who truly want to see democracy fail. Instead, we have created an incubator for terrorism in Iraq. I heard colleagues on the other side of the aisle speak today about how we were going to lose the war on terror if we passed this legislation today. Well, the administration has made the war on terror worse, has made the likelihood of being attacked greater by creating the cesspool that exists in that nation. We must take the steps that the legislation that I proudly supported and that you proudly supported today, that that legislation will do so that we can put some benchmarks in place, so that we can make sure, just like the President said on January 10, so that we can establish some benchmarks, make sure that the Iraqi leadership meets those benchmarks, and if they don't, then the blank check and the open-ended commitment to this pointless war will end. That is the direction that we are now moving in. I am pleased to be joined by my good friend and neighbor from the State of Florida, my colleague, Mr. Kendrick Meek.

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. 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.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes, I believe you are right. The gentleman that is currently our Vice President. In February of 2007, just about a month ago, the number of Federal employees providing facilities management services at Walter Reed, Mr. Speaker, had dropped from 300. There were 300 Federal employees that were replaced with a $120 million private contract run by a former senior Halliburton official, and the 300 dropped to fewer than 60. The remaining 60 employees went to only 50 private workers; 300 to 50 private workers. February 19, we know it was revealed by the Washington Post that there was an expose detailing mistreatment of veterans at housing on the grounds of Walter Reed Medical Center. And what has unfolded since then is resignations of top generals, resignations of the Secretary of the Army. Heads are rolling, Mr. Murphy, as they should be, because of the profound neglect of our wounded veterans and our veterans that need assistance from that very fine institution. Not only did the heads roll, but it led the Appropriations Committee last week to adopt an amendment offered by my colleague who sits on my subcommittee, Mr. LaHood, to ensure that Walter Reed Army Medical Center is not closed down because not only do we need to get to the bottom of what is going on there, but we need to make sure that that institution not only continues to serve our Nation's veterans, but serves them well.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you so much to my friend from Connecticut. It is a pleasure to join you in the 30-something Working Group once again. And we need to remind our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Speaker, that, on November 7, the American people sent us a very loud message. They sent us a loud message that they wanted us to move this country in a new direction. We began to do that. We heard them, and we began to do that in implementing our 100 hours agenda, our Six in '06 agenda, by adopting a bill that would establish an increase in the minimum wage, by having the student loan interest rate, by making sure that we hold pharmaceutical companies' feet to the fire and ensure that, for Medicare part D prescription drug beneficiaries, that we negotiate for lower drug prices. We wanted to make sure that we expand the research into uses of alternative energy. So what do we do? We repealed the subsidies that were given away by the Republicans to the oil industry so that we can use that money more appropriately to fund alternative energy research. We passed legislation that would implement fully the 9/11 Commission recommendations. And, on top of that, the other piece of the new direction pie was clearly the message sent by the American people, Mr. Murphy, that they want a new direction in terms of the war in Iraq. They are sick and tired of the rubber-stamp Republican Congress that we used to have giving the President a blank check, allowing the administration to go unchecked in terms of its utter lack of accountability, allowing contracts to be let with no questions asked; no hearings during the course of the years. We have now completed 4 years of this war, and up until the time when Democrats took over this Congress no questions, no hearings about the direction that the administration was taking this country and this war. A total shift from the war of necessity, which was the war in Afghanistan, which really was in direct response and had the widespread support of the American people, that really and truly was a response to the 9/11 attack; instead, a shift to a war of choice in the war in Iraq. And that was utterly unacceptable when Congress was misled and was given a set of facts on intelligence 4 years ago, when they misled Congress into voting for this war. Now, we are still mired in chaos there. The administration has allowed Afghanistan to descend back into chaos when we had brought them democracy, and we had beaten the Taliban, and women had been given an opportunity to have freedom. Girls could go to school again. It was a new day in Afghanistan. And that has essentially been squandered. In favor of what? In favor of civil war in Iraq? In favor of us intervening and trying to resolve a civil war between the Sunnis and the Shiites that has gone on for hundreds if not 1,000 years? When is this administration going to recognize that when we say the word, when we refer to the troops, Mr. Speaker, it is very easy to think, let's examine the term ``troops.'' I think it is very easy to look at that word and not see it in a personal way. I think that we throw the word ``troops'' around so much that we forget that troops, a troop is a person. We are talking about individuals who are fighting for this country and who are doing their duty. And most of them that are over there are on their third tour of duty, Mr. Murphy. I know I have told this the last few times that I have been here with my 30-something colleagues, but I went to Walter Reed. I cannot get it out of my mind, because I have two 7-year-old kids and a 3-year-old, and I can't imagine what this family has gone through. But one of the soldiers that I visited when I went to Walter Reed before we voted on the escalation resolution and rejected the President's policy, when we voted to adopt that resolution, rejecting the President's policy on escalating this war, I went to Walter Reed before we voted on that. And one of the soldiers I met was with his wife and with his young child, who was 6 years old, this beautiful 6- year-old little boy. And that 6-year-old little boy was so excited that his dad's tour was going to be done in August, and he said, my daddy is coming home forever in August. His dad was sick in Walter Reed. He had contracted a mysterious illness. But he had been through three tours of duty. Each were a year. And his only son, his only child was 6 years old. And that meant that he missed half of his son's life already. So when we refer, you know, without thinking to the troops, the troops, if it is a brigade or any one of a number of military terms that we use for individual troops or a collection of troops, we are talking about people. And if we do not make sure that this supplemental passes, the choice is a plan to get our troops home and provide them with the equipment that they need and an exit strategy and benchmarks to ensure that the we and the administration hold the Iraqi government accountable to meet those benchmarks. The alternative is a continued blank check and a directionless war that has no end in sight. It is a pretty stark contrast. We can eventually see our way clear and had there been a light at the end of the tunnel and adopt the supplemental and, in addition to that, provide the support that our troops need, the equipment that they need, the plan to get them home, and support for our veterans, which is incredibly important; $1.7 billion in this bill for health care for our veterans. We have this glaring, horrific problem at Walter Reed that went ignored by this administration. And thank God we had those, the heads that have rolled. But would they have rolled if Democrats weren't in charge of Congress? No. We know they wouldn't have, because, yet again another scandal would have been swept under the rug. The administration would have tried to ride it out, keep their fingers crossed, squeeze their eyes shut tight and hoped that they could endure until the next media news cycle went through. No more, not now that we have balanced government, that we have the ability of this Congress to assert our oversight role and to reassert what the founding fathers envisioned, which was our system of checks and balances. And I think we are all about third party validators here in the 30- Something Working Group. And I noted what this Washington Post article from Wednesday of last week, it was appropriately titled ``White House Finds Trouble Harder to Shrug Off.'' And it goes on to talk about how, in the past, questions about its, meaning the White House's, actions might have died down without the internal administration e-mails being made public, referring to the U.S. attorney scandal. There are many issues that would have just been swept aside by this administration in the past, allowed to occur and ignored by the then Republican leadership here. But not now that we have a democratic Congress that is going to make sure that we hold this administration's feet to the fire, and make sure that they are responsible for civil liberties for all Americans, and fiscal responsibility. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You know, you are absolutely right. And in addition to the oversight and accountability and new direction that the supplemental on Iraq seeks to provide for the direction that the actual conduct of the war is taking, it is really imperative that we focus on the portion of the bill that relates to what it does for our veterans because, clearly, this administration, and the former Republican leadership of this Congress, did a disservice to them. They spent, in the 2 years that I was here prior to your arrival, the careless disregard that I noticed for veterans coming from the former Republican leadership was just really unbelievable because so often, Mr. Speaker, I heard our colleagues and friends on the other side of the aisle stand on the floor and profess undying devotion to our Nation's veterans and how it was imperative that we support them. Well, words are nice. But that is all they were because every opportunity that our colleagues had, in the time that I was here, when I first got here as a freshman, to help our Nation's veterans, the Republicans said no. No. In January of 2003, which is actually prior to my getting here, the Bush administration actually cut off veterans health care for 164,000 veterans. Don't believe me? You have only to look at the Federal Register to see the documentation of that. March 2003, the Republican budget cut $14 billion from veterans health care that was passed by Congress, with 199 Democrats voting no. That was H. Con. Res. 95, vote Number 82 on March 21, 2003. Then we moved to a year later, March 2004. One would think that the Republicans had a year to think about it and would have finally realized that it was time to stand up for our Nation's veterans. They certainly said it a lot. When it came to doing it, they fell short. The Republican budget shortchanged veterans health care then by $1.5 billion. That was passed by Congress with 201 Democrats voting against it. In March of 2005, another year later, President Bush's budget shortchanged veterans health care by more than $2 billion for 2005, and cut veterans health care by $14 billion over 5 years, and passed with 201 Democrats again voting against it. Now, let's go to the summer of 2005. And I was here by then. I could not believe that this happened, because for months and months the Bush administration denied that there was a shortfall, said that there was no problem, stalled and pushed back. And finally, in summer of 2005, Mr. Murphy, after democratic pressure, the Bush administration finally had to acknowledge in Fiscal Year 2006 that there was a short fall in veterans health care that was their error of $2.7 billion. And we had to fight all summer to get it fixed and have an emergency supplemental bill just to address the shortfall. It took pressure and cajoling and shame to finally bring them to the table and get them to do that. And then in March of 2006, President Bush's budget cut veterans funding by $6 billion, Mr. Speaker, over 5 years. That was passed by the then Republican controlled Congress. Fast forward to January 31st of 2007. The new direction Democrats increased the VA health care budget by $3.6 billion in the joint funding resolution. And now, I can tell you that in our supplemental that passed out of the House Appropriations Committee last Thursday, on which I sit, with none of the Republicans, zero voting for it, $1.7 billion to the request for veterans health care, including $550 million, Mr. Speaker, to address the backlog at the VA health care facilities so we can prevent similar situations like what happened at Walter Reed because certainly, if we didn't know what was going on in Walter Reed, we have to make sure we address the needs of our veterans in health care facilities across this country that are run by this administration's VA agency. $250 million for medical administration so that we can insure we have sufficient personnel to address the rising number of veterans that are coming back from Iraq, and that we have to make sure we maintain a high level of services. $229 million for treating the growing number of veterans. $100 million to allow the VA to contract with private mental health care providers to provide veterans, including Guard and Reserve members who so often are neglected, Mr. Murphy, with quality and timely care; and $62 million so that we can speed claims processing for returning veterans. When I went to Walter Reed, and when I have gone home and talked to my veterans, and I know that you have experienced this too, the bureaucracy and the red tape that our veterans have to go through to get care. It is like they put roadblocks, it is like the VA and this administration puts roadblocks in front of our veterans on purpose. It is like they delight in stalling them. I mean, it is not their money. I don't get it.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. Because now they finally have responsive government, Mr. Murphy. They finally know that the Members who represent them collectively in this Chamber, the Members that are leading this Chamber are hearing them, that it is not falling on deaf ears; that this institution is not of the special interests, for the special interests, and by the special interests any longer. Now we have restored this to actually be the people's House, and our leadership and our agenda is a reflection of the interests of the people. And as much as they might like to say that that wasn't the case, privately in their heart of hearts when they went to sleep at night, our Republican colleagues had to lay down in the dark by themselves when they went to bed and know that they weren't addressing the needs of the American people. I mean, I am not someone who lives and dies by polling, but look at the polling. Look at the numbers towards the end of last year and how the American people generally felt about the job that this Congress was doing. That is a reflection on all of us. It is just appalling that the American people would have confidence in the twenties in the likelihood that Congress was going to be responsive to them. They would express support for their individual Member of Congress, but collectively as an institution they have lost confidence in us.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I want to segue to the U.S. attorney matter because what you just said brought something to mind. But before I do that, I do want to throw out yet another example of the neglect, of the just stark neglect, that this administration has and has had for our veterans. I mean, take Walter Reed. I have a timeline in front of me, a neglect timeline for the treatment of the soldiers that are housed at Walter Reed and that seek services at Walter Reed, going back to July of 2004. First I want to just put up this Newsweek Magazine cover, Mr. Speaker. This is a young woman who clearly has lost her legs, and I think the picture speaks all that it needs to without words. But the caption on the picture on the cover of Newsweek, which was the week of March 5 of this year, says: ``Shattered in body and mind. Too many veterans are facing poor care and red tape. Why we're failing our wounded.'' And Walter Reed, there is no better example of what this article spoke to, Mr. Speaker, than the neglect timeline at Walter Reed. If you go back to July of 2004, again, Mr. Murphy, in the summer before I was elected, you had Major General Kevin Kiley appointed Walter Reed Army Medical Center's Commander. In mid to late 2004, you actually had our colleague from Florida (Mr. Young) and his wife stop visiting the wounded at Walter Reed out of frustration; Mr. Young, who has been a champion for veterans. Believe me when I tell you that our colleague from Florida Mr. Young is a legend, an absolute legend, that is revered in a bipartisan way in this institution. But Mr. Young said he voiced concerns to commanders, including Major General Kiley, over troubling incidents he witnessed, but was rebuffed or ignored. He said, ``When Bev or I would bring problems to the attention of authorities at Walter Reed, we were made to feel very uncomfortable.'' And the source of that was the Washington Post. November of 2005, House Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman Steve Buyer announced that for the first time in at least 55 years, ``Veterans service organizations will no longer have the opportunity to present testimony before a joint hearing of the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees.'' Now, talking about closing off access to the people that we are here to serve, can you imagine that they wouldn't let veterans service organizations testify in front of the Veterans' Affairs Committee? I mean, it is just mind-boggling. August of 2006, Army Major General George Weightman assumes command of Walter Reed, replacing Major General Kiley. September 2006, 13 Senators, 11 Democrats and 2 Republicans, sent a letter to urge then-Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Thad Cochran, Republican from Mississippi, and Ranking Member Robert Byrd, Democrat from West Virginia, to preserve language in the House defense appropriations bill that prohibits the U.S. Army from outsourcing 350 Federal jobs at Walter Reed. A similar provision, introduced by Senators Mikulski and Sarbanes, was defeated by a close 50-48 vote during the bill's consideration in the previous week. Then in September 2006, Walter Reed awards a 5-year, $120 million contract to IAP Worldwide Services, which is run by Al Neffgen, a former senior Halliburton official, to replace a staff of 300 Federal employees. Halliburton again. Who headed up Halliburton, Mr. Murphy? Do you recall who headed up Halliburton?

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, it is essential that we honor those commitments. And I was stricken by what our colleague from Georgia said at the end of the last hour when he referenced the need to be bipartisan, to come together and work on bipartisan solutions and move forward together. I was really glad to hear him say that. But the room was shockingly silent for the last 2 years that I served here, that there really weren't calls for bipartisanship or locking elbows together and finding the way to the best public policy on issues of mutual concern. But be that as it may, we agree that we should move forward in a bipartisan way. And, in fact, the open government and ethics package that we adopted as part of our New Direction agenda on the first day that we were here was a commitment on the part of our leadership and on the part of our Speaker Nancy Pelosi that we would have the most inclusive, open, and honest Congress in American history. And we have steadily been doing that every single day. Unfortunately, the administration doesn't seem to be buying into that same concept of bipartisanship. Again, very nice words are said. I have seen the President stand in the Rose Garden and stand on the South Lawn and stand in lots of different really attractive camera shots talking about the need for bipartisanship. And yet, again, when it has come to light that there was a proposal out of the White House to fire 93 U.S. attorneys and subsequently we have gone back and forth with the White House about what the actual truth behind those suggested and then eventual firing of eight of them was, we have not been able to get a straight answer. In fact, we have had a concern that administration officials, including the Attorney General, have come before Congress and been less than forthcoming. I want to be careful about the words I choose, but it has gotten to the point where we have been told so many different things about what was behind those firings that we are at the-boy-who- cried-wolf point now. Again, speaking as a mom, I know I have talked to my kids, and sometimes children will be less than truthful when they are concerned that they might get in trouble. I know that my kids sometimes are worried they are going to get in trouble and that the potential punishment is worse if they tell me the truth than if they kind of soft-pedal the actual facts, and maybe what happens to them will be not the worst thing. But I always find out. I always eventually know what really happened. And that is exactly what is going on here. Any parent will tell you that they have sat their children down and counseled them, ``You know, it is always better to just tell me the truth, because I am going to find out anyway, and the consequences are going to be far worse for you when I do find out than if you were just up front with me in the beginning.'' Maybe we have to talk to the President and the White House and the administration like moms talk to their kids.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Not to be your mother or anything now, but, seriously, maybe an elementary back-to-basics conversation is what is necessary, because clearly the process that they have been taking us through has been less than honest. We have had a lot of misleading excuses. We have reached a point, and I sit on the House Judiciary Committee, Mr. Murphy, where now our subcommittee has taken the step of feeling like in order to get to the bottom of it, we had to authorize the committee to issue subpoenas to bring the Attorney General and to bring Karl Rove and the administration officials associated with this scandal, with potentially being less than truthful to this Congress, with covering up what actually happened, maybe a subpoena may be necessary. I think that is sad and unfortunate, but we cannot have less than truth when we ask administration officials questions when they come before this institution. I am glad about the potential for bipartisanship. During the hearing we had in Judiciary yesterday, a number of our Republican colleagues indicated they were also unhappy with what was going on with this administration. In fact, specifically on the issue of the attorney firings, one of their top leaders, another good friend from Florida, Congressman Putnam, actually said that he questioned the Attorney General's ability to continue to serve. I will quote what he said in the Washington Post. He said, ``His ability to effectively serve the President and lead the Justice Department is greatly compromised.'' During a lunchtime interview with reporters, he said, ``I think he himself should evaluate his ability to serve as an effective Attorney General.'' We are talking about the number four ranking Republican in their leadership on that side. Believe me, I know Adam Putnam. He has served with integrity in our legislature in Florida, and does so here. If he is at that point, then you know there is something seriously wrong. There is seriously something wrong.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If the gentleman will yield for a second, when then-President Clinton did that, correct me if I am wrong, he was asking for the resignations of the Bush appointees, of the Republican appointees of his predecessor.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Now, my understanding when this scandal occurred, we are talking about a situation where the President, I believe, was considering asking for the resignation of 93 of his own U.S. attorneys. Subsequently, they decided maybe that was going a little too far, so I think the number is eight, they only fired eight.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. My recollection also is that there was some interference and some questions about specific cases for each individual U.S. attorney that were raised by some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle during this process before those firings.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If the gentleman will yield, we should point out the President believes he magnanimously offered was to offer that the officials associated with this scandal to speak with, essentially, the Judiciary Committee, not under oath, that there be no transcript, and that Congress would not subsequently subpoena them. That is when Mr. Conyers said, yes, we could just go have a drink and have that kind of private conversation which reveals nothing, which has no accountability whatsoever. Mr. Murphy, the other thing that I think is important to note is that the first answer that we were given about why, and these people do serve at the pleasure of President. Again, that is why I drew my kid analogy. Because I never understand when I ask my kids, and, fortunately, I have very honest children, so this doesn't happen often, but little kids, when they are learning as they are growing up, they do dumb things. What brought this to mind was the first answer that the administration gave was that, well, you know, we were concerned. We lost confidence in their ability. They weren't up to snuff, they weren't very good attorneys and they weren't doing a very good job. As you might imagine, these are eight pretty capable people who thought they were doing a good job. When they had their ability questioned, a bunch of them got mad. We are talking about very loyal Republicans here, some who had been long-standing supporters and contributors to the Republican Party. They went out there and defended themselves and said, wait a second. I am pretty darn qualified individual. How dare you. Then we dug a little deeper. It turns out, well, it is not that they were not qualified. It is more that they weren't aggressively pursuing Democrats who were being investigated in their jurisdiction. The bottom line is we really don't know. And then they started pointing fingers at each other inside the administration. First, it was really Karl Rove. No, it wasn't Karl Rove, it was Harriet Miers that called for the firings. The bottom line is to restore the confidential of the American people in their government, which is what we absolutely need to do, and that is our goal. Because it was badly shaken by the Republican leadership, we need to get to the bottom of scandals like this. I know we are getting closer to our end time and we want to make sure we have an opportunity to encourage people, if they have any questions or want to see the charts more closely we have seen tonight, we will give out the Web site.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Or forthcoming.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It has been a pleasure to join you, Mr. Murphy. I have to tell you how thrilled I was that we expanded the 30- Something Working Group and we have now given ourselves a new chapter to talk about the issues that are important to the American people, and we have now the ability to hold the administration's feet to the fire and exercise Congress' oversight role which the Founding Fathers envisioned. I would be happy to yield back to the gentleman to close us out.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I am so glad that you went through those benchmarks and stressed that these were the President's benchmarks that we used. The President, on January 10, outlined the benchmarks for success, that he felt were imperative that we need. Those were that we must give the United States the authority to pursue all extremists, we must rein in the militias and have Iraqis step up to the plate to enforce security. They have to decide how their oil revenues are going to be distributed. That is a very important benchmark that has to be accomplished, and they have to pass reconciliation initiatives to keep their country together. Their country is essentially about to fall apart. They are in the midst of civil war and are absolutely at the breaking point. Besides those benchmarks that we had in that supplemental that we passed out of the Appropriations Committee today, and besides the incredibly necessary emergency funding that the troops need and that our veterans need, we also put provisions in that legislation to make sure that our troops can catch their breath. I referred to that soldier who I met in Walter Reed, whose little boy just wanted him to come home, and who had missed half his little boy's life. We have soldiers, many, many soldiers, who have completed three tours of duty, are about to go on their fourth, who are deployed for 365 days and then that deployment is extended. The language we put in that bill ensures and says to the Army that they need to make sure that those deployments are not beyond 365 days. The President can waive that provision by submitting a report to Congress detailing why that unit's deployment is in the interest of national security. But that is the kind of accountability that we are inserting to protect our troops, to make sure that the President certifies that that deployment, that extension is absolutely essential to protect national security, despite the assessment that the unit is not fully mission capable. Our readiness is shot. We are spread so incredibly thin, and we are talking about the impact on human beings' lives. How about the length of deployment? The language in our bill requires the Defense Department to abide by its current policy and avoid extending the deployment of units in Iraq in excess of the 365 days. We have to make sure that those units are fully mission capable, and the time between deployments is essential as well. The Defense Department would be required to abide by, again, its current policy and avoid sending units back into Iraq before troops get the required time out of the combat zone and training time, 365 days for the Army, and 210 days for the Marines. And the President can also waive that provision in the interest of national security. He just has to certify to Congress that that is the case. And that is the kind of accountability that the American people insisted upon on November 7. They asked us for a new direction, in the 6 in 2006 items of our agenda that we have already passed, and they insisted that we move this war in a new direction so that there would be an end in sight, so that the President would no longer have a blank check, and so that we could make sure we could protect our men and women in uniform who are protecting us. And I would be happy to yield to the gentleman. And I am going to have to take my leave of the gentleman because I have constituents that are in town that I need to speak with. I look forward to you carrying on

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And we can talk another time about which team our team defeated in order to get there, Mr. Ryan of Ohio.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Anyway, to get back to the matter at hand, Mr. Meek referred to the fact that the 30-something Working Group was probably expected to shrivel up and die, to blow away after we won the majority, to just not re-emerge because one might think that there was no point in our continuing to exist. However, because the United States Congress and because we believe Democrats are responsible in the leadership of this Congress for accountability, we absolutely need to make sure that we use multiple facets of opportunity available to us to hold people accountable. We had an opportunity the last number of years to use this forum to hold our good friends on the other side of the aisle accountable, yet we still need to hold this administration accountable. And Lord knows that they certainly need it, as they continue to demonstrate every single day. And I just want to move on a little past the whistleblower act and the 104 hearings that we have had on this war in Iraq that have been scheduled since we took over the leadership of this Congress to the Attorney General, the U.S. Attorney firings that occurred in the last 10 days or so. I just came from a House Committee on the Judiciary meeting in which we adopted legislation that will ensure that we reassert the Congress', on the Senate side, role in confirming U.S. Attorneys and restore the check and balance that used to be in place before a provision was inserted in the dead of night by the Republicans in the conference committee without any committee reviewing it whatsoever. They completely changed the way the U.S. Attorneys were confirmed. They politicized that process without any Member being able to have the opportunity to debate it in the light of day. And clearly we can see as a result of the actions of Attorney General Gonzales and the fact that he has chosen to throw a staff person under the bus rather than have the buck stop with him, seems to be a pattern in this administration, i.e. Scooter Libby. We need to make sure that Congress reasserts our oversight role, and that is exactly what we just did in the Judiciary Committee. But let's just recap what happened with the U.S. Attorneys. Eight U.S. Attorneys were fired. Now, the U.S. Attorneys serve at the pleasure of the President, and we certainly don't deny that. However, when asked, when an inquiry was made, as is the Congress' responsibility, as to why those eight U.S. Attorneys were fired, the answer that we got was, well, the eventual answer we got was that it was performance related. Well, of course the eight U.S. Attorneys took umbrage at that and some of them came forward and suggested that there were actually some lawmakers, our good friends on the other side of the aisle specifically, that called and inquired about the progress of cases against Democrats in their jurisdiction. And then coincidentally, a few weeks later those that had gotten called that weren't responsive enough seemed to have been let go. Now, in the wake of all of this, in the wake of the Attorney General being less than factual in front of a committee of this body and in the wake of the clear difference in what he said and what actually happened, you have the chief of staff to the Attorney General who has resigned. Last week you had another individual responsible for overseeing the U.S. Attorneys resign. Now, they say that he was on his way out anyway. But it is time, and thank God we are able to now exercise Congress' oversight role and make sure that we have some fairness, make sure that we have justice administered in the way that Americans expect it to be, and that we are not politicizing the Department of Justice or the legal process that U.S. Attorneys oversee in each of their jurisdictions. Without us pointing that out, it would normally have just been swept under the rug. The administration would have just tried to ride it out and weather the storm. But now that we have a Democratic Congress, they can't do that anymore.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you so much to my good friend. First, let me say that that is a beautiful orange and blue tie, Mr. Ryan, an excellent choice of colors, and coincidentally, the colors of my alma mater which, by the way, is playing in the NCAA tournament beginning tomorrow night. And who will be at the White House to celebrate the national championship in football? But I digress.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Can I share a story with you? I know I have shared this with you before, but I think it's worth repeating. Right before we debated the Iraq war resolution a couple of weeks ago, I took the opportunity to go to Walter Reed and visit our wounded soldiers, had a chance to meet with six or eight of the finest young men that I have ever encountered. One of them was a young man who suffered from an inexplicable illness and was recovering at Walter Reed. When I met him, his wife and his 6 year-old little boy were there. The gentleman explained to me that he had been in the middle of his third tour of duty, and he had a 6 year-old little boy. Each tour was 1 year, 1 year. Now, if you do the math, that means that he missed half of his little boy's life. The overwhelming sadness that came over me was almost too much to bear. I mean, this little boy was so sweet, his wife was so understanding, they were so committed to his dad's service, her husband's service. The little boy said to me, just spontaneously, you know, as 6 year-old little boys are, I have a 7 year-old little boy so I know, he spontaneously burst out, he knew his dad was supposed to finish his tour in August, and he was going to come home forever in August. We forget this is about families and people, and we are destroying the fabric of these families.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. They actually went farther than that. You have a former Chief of Staff of the White House, a U.S. Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Sununu, who said, ``I think the Attorney General should be fired,'' period, dot, in the words of Mr. Meek.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, on Tuesday, March 6, 2007, I was attending to personal family matters in the District. Consequently, I missed Rollcall votes No. 121, ``Honoring the life and achievements of the late Dr. John Garang de Mabior,'' and Rollcall vote No. 122, ``Supporting the goals of International Womens Day.'' If present, I would have voted ``aye'' on both matters.

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ

Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. On that point, just to focus on the National Guard and how correct you are about how they are being treated versus what they signed up for, there are now 14,000 National Guard troops being deployed earlier than they were originally scheduled to meet the demands of the President's proposed plans to escalate the war. National Guard and Army units are being called up sooner than previously scheduled, and that is even though some of these units do not have the equipment that they need. They do not have the training, and some of them are having to go over there foregoing the training. Mr. Meek and I are going to be meeting with our general, who is in charge of our National Guard in Florida very soon. I just saw the request today, and I am looking forward to meeting with him. I met with him in my district in Florida as well last year, and the conversations that I have had with him and with others about the condition of the equipment, not just the condition of the equipment that is going over there, but what happens to the equipment once it comes back because we are not replacing the equipment and sending them new equipment after it has been through 5, 6 years of an Iraq War. So the equipment that they are working on and that they are utilizing has been through war literally. I mean, we are not making sure that they have the equipment that they need. We are sending them over there two, three and four times now. When I went to Walter Reed a couple of weeks ago, every single guy I met had been through three tours, three. One of the guys I met, his little boy was there, and literally his dad had been on three tours. His little boy was six, which means that this dad missed half of his child's life already, half. I mean, that is just inexcusable. That is not what our volunteers sign up for. I mean, even if you signed up for the regular standing Army, it is unreasonable to expect that they would have to have that kind of pressure, physical, mental, emotional pressure put on them as well as their families, especially in the middle of the situation in a war that we are involved in under dubious circumstances to begin with. I do not know if Mr. Meek wants to jump in here now, but he is still sitting so I imagine not. So I will go back to Mr. Murphy.