Early Actions Of New Democrat Majority

EARLY ACTIONS OF NEW DEMOCRAT MAJORITY -- (House of Representatives - January 05, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, this is a nice occasion at the end of the week to wrap up what we have been doing and talk about how we have been active this week, but before I start, I would like to yield to the distinguished former chairman of the Armed Services Committee, my colleague from California (Mr. Hunter), to discuss points that he illuminated in his first 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend Mr. McHenry, and again, I thought it was important, as we move into this new era and my great friend Ike Skelton takes over the Armed Services Committee to reflect on where we stand and what we did in the last Congress.

Again, just to reiterate, we culminated a 40 percent pay increase for the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the United States Marine Corps, and the National Guard in this last 8 years. Along with that, we increased family separation pay, which is the pay a family receives when the loved one is separated, maybe is in theatre, or maybe is deployed far around the world in this global war against terror. We increased that from $150 to $250 per month. We increased combat pay. We increased a number of our insurances. And also, Mr. Speaker, we increased TRICARE coverage for National Guard personnel and for their families.

Along with that, we did something that was really the special project of the outgoing readiness chairman, Mr. Hefley of Colorado, which was to bring in to full flower this privatization of housing on military bases across the country so that military wives and family members could move into really great housing.

I have to tell you, in visiting bases across America, it has been heartwarming to see these military families coming into wonderful new housing that often has an entertainment area in maybe a common area with a pool and tennis courts and reading rooms in the center of one of these housing projects where the families can go for entertainment and take their children for good quality time.

So the quality of life for America's military families has been greatly increased over the last 8 years.

Now, what have we done in terms of firepower? Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that beginning with this administration and meetings that we held with the Secretary of Defense and with the President, one concern that I had, and a number of members of our committee had, was the amount of what I would call precision firepower. That is the ability to deliver a smart bomb or a precise system. Instead of, for example, having to drop 100 bombs on a bridge to knock a bridge out, to be able to send a smart bomb in, hit one strut on that bridge, and bring the bridge down.

We all know now that this is the age of precision firepower, and we wanted to greatly expand our precision firepower because that gives the United States the capability to project enormous power around the world when we have to. So, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to report to the people of the House, to our great colleagues and to the American people that we have in the last 8 years more than doubled, more than doubled our precision firepower.

A lot of that is manifested in what we call LGBs, or laser-guided bombs. A lot is manifested in what we call JDAMs, or joint direct attack munitions. But for our adversaries, that means that America has the power now to send in more than twice the firepower in precise places, at precise targets with enormous effect. That is very important for America's troops and for America's strength.

Now, Mr. Speaker, also people have asked what have we done in terms of enlarging the size of the two ground elements of America's military, the primary ground elements, the United States Army and the United States Marine Corps? We have increased the size of the Marine Corps now from 175,000 personnel to 180,000 personnel. We have increased it right at, in fact, exactly 5,000 Marines. And the last time I checked, we were something like 100 Marines under that limit. But we have gone from 175,000 Marines to 180,000 Marines. We are right at that exact number, a few people short, but we have those Marines actually on the ground, deployed, showing up for roll call each day in their particular position in the war against terror. So we have increased the size of the United States Marine Corps. Now, we may need further increases, but at least at this point we have a 5,000 troop increase.

With respect to the Army, we took the Army end strength from 482,000 to 512,000. That is a 30,000 person increase in the United States Army. Now, a number of us on the Armed Services Committee have done an analysis parallel to the QDR, the Quadrennial Defense Review, and we feel we may have to increase the Marine Corps and the Army further, and you can see those recommendations manifested in that report. But we have actually increased the Army and we have increased the size of the U.S. Marine Corps.

Now, if you ask, and a number of people have asked since Ronald Reagan made that speech in 1983 and said, in essence, we are entering the age of missiles, and the United States, to secure its people, has to have the ability to shoot down incoming missiles, a number of people have asked us and asked regularly where are we in terms of missile defense. And I am pleased to report, Mr. Speaker, that for the first time in the history of the United States, we actually have a very small, very limited, but nonetheless very real missile defense for the first time. It is manifested in the interceptor missiles that we have in place on the Pacific coast and Alaska that could handle, on a very limited basis, a rogue missile or several coming into the United States.

Now, some people may say, well, that is not much. And my answer is, that is more than we have ever had in the history of this country. We have deployed a missile defense and we will be building on that deployment.

So, Mr. Speaker, I just thought it was important to lay out some of the things that this Congress has done and that this Armed Services Committee has accomplished for the American people. A 40 percent pay increase for our troops, increasing the size of the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps, putting together the first missile defense in the history of the country, and more than doubling the precision firepower of our armed forces.

Lastly, Mr. Speaker, the President will be making a statement very soon about this adjusted policy on Iraq, and I just wanted to once again tell my colleagues the recommendation that I have made. I know a lot of us have made recommendations to the President and to the Secretary of Defense.

Right now, there are 18 provinces in Iraq. And in half of those provinces, nine of those provinces, there are virtually no attacks taking place. They average less than one attack a day. In those quiet peaceful provinces, there are 27 battalions of Iraqi soldiers located and stationed. Twenty-seven battalions is a lot of soldiers, Mr. Speaker. It is a lot of firepower. It is a lot of personnel.

My recommendation to the President and to the Secretary of Defense for the last several months, and I hope that this has been a part of their conversation, I have urged them, and a number of other of my colleagues have joined with me in urging them to take the 27 Iraqi battalions that we have trained and equipped and move them into the battle. Now, that means that the Ministry of Defense is going to have to give orders to those battalion commanders and those brigade commanders in the quiet peaceful sections of Iraq and tell them to saddle up their forces, get them on the trucks, and move them to Baghdad.

They need to do that. That should be nonnegotiable. It should be a requirement by the American war fighting commanders that cannot be delayed, cannot be finessed, and cannot be put aside. That is something that should be nonnegotiable, especially against the backdrop of the enormous American effort that has given birth to this new government in Iraq.

So I know the President is going to come out with his suggested policy soon, but I thought it was important to lay out this fact, that right now we have 27 Iraqi battalions in quiet areas which can be utilized in the fight, can be put into the fight. In my estimation, their value in an urban setting, especially one like Baghdad, where speaking the language is important, and where knowing the communities is important, their placement in those positions before we move any additional American troops into those urban situations is, I think, something that we should do, and that we should require of the Ministry of Defense of Iraq.

I want to thank Mr. McHenry for letting me come out and talk a little bit about these issues and take some of his valuable time. I certainly appreciate the gentleman's allowing me to come out and say a word or two.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting moment in our Nation's history, an interesting moment indeed, with a new Democrat majority coming to these hallowed halls of Congress. The American people spoke in November and they wanted a change.

As someone who was formerly in the majority party, now in the minority party, I respect the power of democracy to change our Nation and change the direction of our Nation in important policy areas. I think some of that is going to be beneficial to our economy, and other proposals that the new Democrat majority are putting forward are going to be hurtful to our economy and to our national defense and our family security. But I think it is important that we talk today about some of the early actions of this new Democrat majority.

During the campaign season over the last few years, the last 2 years, the Democrats campaigned on openness and accountability. They campaigned on many things.

In the opening days of Congress, we have seen a far different reality than what they campaigned on over the last 2 years. It is disheartening to me as an American citizen and someone who is hopeful and optimistic about this new Congress, hopeful that we can work on a bipartisan basis, and I think it is important that we talk about these opening day actions and the actions they have taken over the last 2 days of this new Democrat majority.

The first action and the first course of business of this new Congress was to pass a very closed-off process for consideration of the so-called 100-hour agenda of the Democrat party put forward by the new speaker, Ms. Pelosi of California.

What we see in this closed-off package is far different than when they campaigned on. They campaigned on an open process, open and fair debate, a dialogue across the aisle, so that we could work in a bipartisan way for the American people. The first action they took was to lock out all dissenting voices, even within their own party, but also among the Republicans represented here today. The Republicans represent 140 million Americans here in the U.S. House of Representatives. Their first action after campaigning on openness and bipartisanship was to close out dissenting voices, to close out the amendment process.

I was surprised by this, because looking at then-Minority Leader PELOSI'S words, I believed that Minority Leader PELOSI would be a very open Speaker Pelosi. What we see with her words and actions, and I have a visual aid here to that effect, now, Speaker Pelosi, then Minority Leader PELOSI, said a few things about the minority having rights here in this institution.

Then-Minority leader PELOSI said in 2004, her Minority Bill of Rights includes fair principles. ``There is a very excellent chance that the Republicans will be in the minority next year, and what I am saying is this is the way the House should be conducted, in a bipartisan way, and whether he,' meaning Speaker Hastert at the time, ``agrees to it or not, this is the course of action that I will take.'

What is striking to me is the date on that is June 2004. We are in the second day of a Democrat majority and we have, instead of a Minority Leader Pelosi, a Speaker Pelosi. What is striking here is ``that is the course of action that I will take.' Those are the Speaker's words.

To that end, I took the very letter that Minority Leader PELOSI wrote at the time and we filed that legislation and we offered it here on the House floor yesterday, and it was flatly rejected. Every Democrat to the person voted against it.

It is striking to me that in their first day as a majority, as a Democrat majority, they are already going back on the words that they campaigned on, they campaigned on in 2004, 2005 and 2006.

What did they say in 2005? Then minority leader Pelosi said, ``Mr. Speaker, I implore you to end the repeated abuses of the rules by the Republican majority to ram legislation through in such a secretive and unfair manner.' That is 2005.

What we see today and yesterday by this new Democrat majority is that they have a secretive process, because it says that we cannot offer any amendments on the legislation that we will soon be able to see. We can't even see the legislation in their 100 hours. They have not let us or the American people or even many in their own party see the legislation which we will be voting upon and for which we gave initial approval to today. That is very striking to me, especially after the language and rhetoric used in 2004 and 2005 by Speaker Pelosi.

``Additionally, in 2006, so 3 years running, more than 2 years ago, I first sent Speaker DENNIS HASTERT Democrat proposals to restore civility to the Congress. I reiterate my support for those proposals today. We must restore bipartisanship to the administration of the House, reestablish regular order for consideration of legislation and ensure the rights of the minority, whichever party is in the minority. The voice of every American has to be heard.'

Now, 2004, 2005, 2006, Minority Leader Pelosi talked about openness and bipartisanship. Speaker Pelosi, the first act of office, goes completely back on these very words. This rhetoric did not become reality on the first opening hours of the Democrat majority. I am hopeful, as all Americans should be, hopeful that there is openness tomorrow. As Americans, we are an optimistic people.

I think it would be amazing, in fact, I think we would all be amazed, if their second act was for openness when their first act, their first principle, was closing off debate and closing off any input from rank and file Members of this body and the people that we represent at home.

What I would say is that beyond just the words, we need to look at the values and the principles of this majority. We offered this minority bill of rights that then minority leader Pelosi proposed, and it simply says that legislation should be considered in the committee process and we should have full open debate and discourse.

In essence, we outlined what all fifth graders in this great country are taught about the legislative process here in the House of Representatives, that a bill is filed, it is sent to committee, it is amended and debated and compromised there, it goes to the floor and goes through that same process, when in fact that is not always the course of operation of this House.

So the problem is that it is not simply about the process. The issue today is that the process corrupts the policy. When you stack the deck on the outcome, you corrupt the policy of this House Chamber and the laws of this land. So process and policy are intertwined. When one is corrupted, so is the other. With the Democrats shutting down debate at a critical moment in our Nation's history, we have to question their judgment.

There are a number of proper proposals they are putting forward in the initial 100 hours of debate here in the House of Representatives. One thing that is very important to Americans and our national security is the 9/11 Commission recommendations outlined in the fall and over the last few years. We have heard them very well.

The Democrats campaigned that they wanted to and would, if they were given the majority, fully implement the 9/11 recommendations. No matter whether or not they were good public policy or not, they are going to implement all of them.

Well, as it turns out, the Washington Post reported on November 30, 2006, that ``With control of Congress now secured, Democratic leaders have decided for now against implementing the one measure that would affect them most directly, a wholesale reorganize of Congress to improve oversight and funding of the Nation's intelligence agencies.'

It is striking that just days after the election, they are already going back on their proposal to implement the 9/11 Commission's recommendations. Now they are saying that they will implement some but not all. It is kind of surprising, because the American people heard in an almost unanimous voice from Democrats that they were going to implement all of the 9/11 Commission recommendations. I didn't hear candidates out there and Members of Congress on the Democrat side saying some, but not all. No, they said all 9/11 Commission recommendations.

Only through press reports do we know what this legislation says. They have not given this out, other than their allies on K Street and the lobbying community. But they haven't given this out for the American people and for the press and for all Members of Congress to see. So we have some concerns about this, because there are many of us who want to offer perfecting amendments, to make sure this policy is right and secures our Nation in a proper way.

Thomas Kean, who is a former distinguished Member and Governor of New Jersey, was a cochair of the 9/11 Commission. He called these important overhauls in the congressional process of oversight and intelligence vital.

What we have to do is make sure that the Democrats uphold their promise. We don't want broken promises. We don't want them to campaign on good ideas and be corrupted by an ugly process here that results in bad policy. National security is, of course, of key and utmost importance, and I am glad they are at least bringing that up in the first 100 hours.

Additionally, many of us in this Nation are concerned about research and ensuring that we have medical cures that comfort, that our government policy upholds not just ethical and moral research, but lifesaving research.

Next Thursday, from press reports, the Democrats will vote to enact legislation to expand Federal taxpayer funding for research that destroys human life and human embryos, and they call this stem cell research.

Well, while I don't support the destruction of human life, I do support stem cell research, adult stem cell research that has led to cures. Unfortunately, due to the process that they have here in this new Democrat majority, we are not going to be able to offer amendments to ensure that life is not destroyed and that human embryos are not destroyed in this process of research.

But if you look at embryonic stem cell research versus adult stem cell research, there have been wonderful cures coming out of adult stem cell research, but no cures coming out of embryonic stem cell research. And we are not even questioning whether or not embryonic stem cell research should come about. It is a question of whether our taxpayer dollars should be used to destroy human life, or what many Americans believe to be a destruction of human life.

Even if not all of us agree on whether or not life should be protected at its most basic and precious moment, we should all agree that we shouldn't have unethical processes and research funded by our Federal taxpayer dollars. In fact, the National Institutes of Health spends roughly $600 million per year on stem cell research already, including $40 million for research involving certain types of embryonic stem cell research. But the type of research they conduct does not destroy human life.

Additionally, nearly 100 million of it is for nonhuman embryonic stem cell research. So this is already being done, yet it is a nice rhetorical device, just like the Democrats campaigning on implementing all the 9/11 Commission Report recommendations and just like openness and fairness. American people like the sound of that. But what is concerning, whether it is embryonic stem cell research, the 9/11 Commission, or openness and fairness, is that it was only rhetoric. The Democrats didn't want to implement it and make it reality here in policy and in law for our Nation.

Beyond that, we have another provision that we voted on today, and this is Pelosi's PAYGO legislation. Now, PAYGO is a shorthanded word for pay-as-you-go. It is a nice way that we talk about it here on Capitol Hill. We call it PAYGO. Now, it sounds very good. The American people want us to pay for government policies as we enact them, and so that is a great rhetorical device as well. Pay-as-you-go. Well, what is devilish about this proposal is that it will lead to a backdoor tax increase down the line.

As the Wall Street Journal editorial said today: under Pelosi's PAYGO plan, new entitlement programs and all new tax cuts would have to be offset by either cutbacks and other entitlement programs or tax increases. This version of Pelosi's PAYGO is a budget trapdoor designed to control expenditures but to make it easier, easier, to raise taxes while blocking future tax cuts.

That is from today's Wall Street Journal.

Now, the fundamental budget problem is not spending too little and taxing too little; it is the fact that right now in our country Federal revenues climbed by $550 billion over the past 2 fiscal years, and that is as a direct result of the economic support and economic growth of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts. As the economy grows and more people are employed, fewer people use government services. As fewer people use government services and are making money on their own, they actually begin to pay taxes. When people are paying taxes, revenue to government goes up. It is a basic process. And through this robust economic growth that has come out of these tax cuts, we have had more revenue come into government.

So pay-as-you-go is a way for the Democrats to establish later the reasoning to go to the American people and say we need to raise your taxes. Now, I think it is a faulty and flawed policy, because the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 have not limited income to government; in fact, what the American people must know, Mr. Speaker, is that the government revenue to the United States Government is the highest it has ever been in the history of our country. The highest revenue of any time in our country's history. Beyond that, actually to say it more broadly, we have more government revenue coming into the U.S. Treasury, your tax dollars coming into the U.S. Treasury. Even after tax cuts, we have the most government revenue in the history of man and the history of the Earth. No government has ever received as much in tax dollars as ours does today; yet, still, the Democrats put a proposal on the floor today that will let them raise taxes later.

It is so shocking and so surprising that they would do this in their opening week in Congress. Now, I knew there were tax-and-spenders on the other side of the aisle, and that is a liberal focus, to grow the size of government, increase the revenue to government; but I didn't realize they would do this at the very beginning of their new majority in Congress. I think the American people should be shocked by that.

But what this pay-as-you-go, or PAYGO, proposal ignores is that all the appropriations we have made in the past, the current government programs that we have will not be under this rule. So we won't analyze the entitlement programs to see where they need to be reformed; we won't analyze existing government programs to see that they are getting the proper result or they are being efficient with their dollars. It will only apply to new spending.

So let's look at the 100-hour plan and total up the tax value of it and the spending value of it. And what you see as a result of this plan is pretty simple: $800 billion of new spending in this 100-hour plan. Now, think about that. I think the American people should stop for a second, Mr. Speaker, and think about the fact that in 100 short legislative hours, over just a few days, the new Democrat majority will spend $800 billion. That is shocking.

Now, I know that there are these free-spending ways in Washington, and as a conservative I am opposed to that, especially as someone who considers themselves a fiscal hawk. But to spend that much money in such a short period of time has got to strike the American people as egregious, especially when you campaigned as the Democrats tried to in the last election as fiscal conservatives and a party that wants to balance the budget. Yet, they are offering $800 billion worth of new spending in their first acts of office.

So how do they get that money to pay as they go? They are going to come to our tax dollars, our personal tax dollars. They are going to ask more from every American. That means that when you get your paycheck, whether you work in my district in Hickory, North Carolina, or Mooresville or in Cherryville, where I am from, you are going to pay more out of that paycheck to fund the programs that the Democrats who are in control of this place want to implement. So the average working man and woman in this country will pay more under Democrat leadership than they will under Republican leadership.

Beyond that, this 100-hour proposal completely, completely ignores some of the most pressing issues in our country, certainly ensuring that our troops in the field are funded fully. Now, that is very important. Completely ignored in the 100-hour plan in the Democrat agenda for this Congress. What about entitlement reform? Because, after all, that is the largest section of the budget of our Federal budget, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security. Very important programs. But we need to make sure that they are fiscally efficient, that they are fiscally sound, and it is clear that they are not either

efficient nor sound.

So we need to look at entitlement programs, yet the Democrat majority has completely ignored entitlement reform in their agenda. They have completely ignored making Social Security solvent for future generations. And as someone who is eligible for retirement the same year that Social Security goes finally broke, I am concerned about that, and my generation of Americans should be concerned about that as well as all generations of Americans.

What else is missing? Well, obviously the cost of litigation on small businesses across this country, completely ignored that, certainly because the trial lawyers I think have helped write the Democrat agenda for this Congress and there is a big difference between what trial lawyers seek and what the average small businessman or the average family doctor in this country seeks. And so they have completely ignored reforming and limiting litigation and the cost of litigation on the American society. Completely ignored that.

They have also ignored helping small businesses with health care either through health savings accounts where individuals can save tax free, something that we as Republicans have worked very hard, and free-market conservatives like the idea of people being able to save tax free without Uncle Sam reaching into your savings and pocketing that money; or association health plans where small businesses can come together, link up, and increase their affordability and their buying capacity to give their employees health care. Completely ignored with the Democrats' agenda.

In fact, the Democrats came on the floor, some of these that campaigned on the other side of the aisle as helping small businesses, one of their first votes was to vote against letting small businesses pool their resources to buy health care. That hurts. That hurts in the opening days of Congress.

Beyond that, they have ignored border security. I think the American people have demanded border security and a sane immigration policy for this country. There are many leaders on my side of the aisle on the issue of border security, and I think we need to engage in that discussion on how we reform our immigration policy in this United States and how we plan to do that. I think most Americans agree that we must begin with the border, to ensure that we have an immigration policy that is enforceable, realistic, and real for this country.

So though we are just in a few opening hours of this new Congress, some things are clear. Some things are very clear. The rhetoric that the Democrats campaigned on was good. It was good. The American people supported it. The American people put new Democrats in office, Democrats that campaigned some as fiscal conservatives, others as social conservatives, most certainly as moderates in this last election. But their opening hours, their opening hours go back on those pledges for fiscal sanity due to the high cost of their opening plan and proposals, $800 billion worth of spending in just 100 hours.

It goes back on this openness concept. It goes back on fiscal sanity by covering up with this Pelosi PAYGO plan that will raise our taxes later in the year or later next year, certainly tax increases in the future, though. It fully ignores their proposal to fully implement the 9/11 Commission proposals by kind of sort of doing a few of them that they think are politically palatable rather than following through on their promise. It uses a great rhetorical device of stem cell research. But when they come here and they vote, they ignore the cloning issue, whether or not we are funding human cloning, whether or not we are destroying human life.

So the rhetoric in the campaign is very much removed from their actions in this new Congress.

They also ignore their pledge to work with all sides on issues of importance to the American people, to work in a bipartisan way. They even go back on their pledge and demand for minority rights here in this institution. So we see hypocrisy from the Democrat majority. Many would say it is ironic that you campaign as a conservative, yet come in and govern as a liberal, which we are already seeing in just two days of Democrat control.

But, Mr. Speaker, I think the American people are an optimistic and hopeful people. We have a new week, we have a new day coming where the Democrats can change, and I am hopeful that they will, that they will go back to what they campaigned on that the American people endorsed in the last election for bipartisanship, for openness, for national security and the defense of our country, for good strong family values, and fiscal sanity. And when that happens, I will be happy to reach across the aisle and work with my colleagues in the Democrat majority to ensure that these things happen.

But until that day comes, I will point out the fact that they are going back on their words to the American people, and I will not restrain myself from calling it as I see it, and I think as the way the American people should see it as well, that in order to govern effectively you have to fulfill your promises, you have to make sure it is not empty campaign rhetoric, that in fact it is a full implementation of the agenda that you sought in the election.

I think the American people want change in Washington. I don't think they got change in the last two days, though. I think what you saw with this new Democrat majority is this same type of abuse of power that they had in 1993, in 1992, through the 1980s and the 1970s. The majority may be new today, but the Democrat chairmen are the same as they were 20 years ago, on the larger part of the Democrat majority and for the larger part of the committees that they have organized. And the policy proposals that they offer going forward after this 100-hour proposal will be much the same as they offered in the early 1990s and the 1980s and the 1970s.

Those policy proposals are pretty simple: Raise your taxes, weaken national defense, and go the opposite way on family values. But I hope that we can work with moderates on the other side of the aisle, moderates on the other side of the aisle that are willing to look at fiscal sanity, willing to stand up for traditional values and willing to do the right thing for the American people and will work together. I am very hopeful that we will have that opportunity after this 100-hour proposal is done. And hopefully, it will be done quickly.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov/