[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 36 (Tuesday, March 28, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H1187-H1193]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Foxx). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, this is 30-something Part 2 here.
I am glad Ms. Wasserman Schultz and Ms. Bean had the opportunity to
claim the first hour. I see Ms. Wasserman Schultz is proudly wearing
her Florida pin, her Gators pin.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Go Gators.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. They are in the money, and I believe Florida
will be able to do some great things.
Let me just say, Madam Speaker, as you know, we come to the floor to
talk about a number of things, talk about what we as Democratic Members
here in the House have to offer the American people. We want to make
sure that there is no secret about our plans, about our initiatives,
and what we are trying to do to be able to make sure that this country
gets back on fiscal discipline, track, be more physically, fiscally
sound, I am sorry, I am trying to get it out, it is a little late, but
also just to make sure we are accountable to the American people, not
just accountable to the Democratic citizens of the United States of
America, but to make sure that we are accountable to all Americans.
I think that is the approach that we are taking, through the polling
that I am seeing and reading, not only in periodicals, but also that I
am getting
[[Page H1188]]
individuals that are e-mailing what people are saying and how they
feel. Madam Speaker, to my e-mail, a number of them, I am very pleased
about how the Democratic Members of the House and Senate have stood up
to this administration.
As you know, Mr. Ryan, there are a number of issues that have been
unearthed through what we do here on this floor, by sharing with the
American people, Madam Speaker, with third-party validators and making
sure that we share our plans with the American people and make sure
that they are not what we say in some parts of the country, hoodwinked,
bamboozled, or what we say here in Washington DC to be a recipient of
the Potomac two-step.
I believe now more than ever, Mr. Ryan, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, and
Mr. Delahunt that the American people should and deserve to be leveled
with. I think that is what we are looking for. They are not looking for
who is the greatest party on the face of the Earth, and who has the
best mascot or who wears the best tie or the best dress or the best
suit or whatever the case may be. They are looking for individuals that
are willing to govern above the table and not under the table.
I know, with great confidence, that we are there 110 percent. On
terrorism, we are there 110 percent. We are on the side of making sure
that we track down the individuals who are responsible for 9/11. Not
only track them down, but kill them if necessary. I think it is
important that we lay that on the table right here, right now.
The bottom line is the fact that we on this side of the aisle have
fought on behalf of increasing container security at the ports. We just
had an example last week, Mr. Ryan. Mr. Sabo had an amendment here on
the floor. Another example that we are going to talk about a little
later on is we tried to increase security at the ports on the heels of
the whole lack of security at ports, Mr. Delahunt, and still the
American majority voted it down.
I am excited about the fact that we are back. I am excited about the
fact that we are going to talk about some of these issues tonight.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. One of the issues, too, is we are talking about
this. We now have evidence where a recent report coming into our hands,
through the United States Senate, that investigators smuggled in enough
radio active material to build two dirty bombs into the United States,
which calls into question this administration's efforts to secure our
borders.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Ryan, if you would just yield for a moment.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I think it is important to recollect for a moment our
friends from the other side of the aisle, part of the Republican
majority of this House, tonight were on the floor and they were talking
about how for this Congress, this Bush Republican Congress, national
security and homeland defense were a priority.
It would appear that simply by repetition, by saying it somehow it
translates into meaningful national security in real homeland defense.
Yet we find again and again and again that this country, as a result of
the actions by this White House and this Bush Republican Congress, have
failed to provide homeland defense that is meaningful for this country.
That report, by the way, it should be noted, was conducted by the
Government Accountability Office. That is an independent arm of this
Congress. This is not Democrats picking on Republicans.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. This isn't, Mr. Delahunt, and Mr. Meek, saying we
are going to run a sting operation to check the ports and see how the
borders are. This is the Government Accountability Office. This is
their report, and they were able to sneak in, through the northern
border and the southern border, enough radioactive material to build
two dirty bombs in the United States of America.
We are not here because we want to pick on anybody.
Mr. DELAHUNT. If my friend would yield for a moment.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I want to commend a Senator, a Republican, that
requested this particular GAO investigation and inquiry and
commissioned that it be undertaken by this independent arm of the U.S.
Congress. This is what that Republican Senator from Minnesota has to
say about the findings and the conclusion of that report.
{time} 2300
The Senator said, A report that investigators smuggled enough
radioactive material to build two dirty bombs into the United States
called into question the Bush administration's efforts to secure the
borders.
Senator Norm Coleman, a Republican, a Minnesota Republican, who heads
the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations which held a
hearing said he was alarmed at the ease with which investigators
brought the unspecified radiological material and transported it across
the northern and southern U.S. borders.
Now, when I hear that this Bush Congress and this Bush White House
have done something about homeland defense and national security, Madam
Speaker, who is kidding who? Who is kidding who? Can't we have some
honesty?
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You know what strikes me when you say that is
that we talk about the culture of corruption and cronyism and
incompetence that has existed for quite some time now and it is only
getting worse with every passing day, it is interesting that the
administration appears to think that just by changing out a staffer, by
swapping one person, a chief of staff, for another, that that is
somehow going to magically transform this administration into a
competent one.
It is amazing to me that they could get materials into this country
if they have been supposedly stepping up their commitment and our
ability to keep our Nation secure in the last 5 years. How is that
possible if they are running a tight ship like they say they are?
Mr. DELAHUNT. If I can, there is a second report in addition to the
one that we were just discussing. This second report, again,
commissioned by the Republican chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on
Investigations, its conclusions were this: The Homeland Security
Department has placed 670 monitors at ports around the country. At the
current pace the department will fail, let me repeat that, fail to meet
its goal for installing 3,034 devices by September 2009. To reach the
goal the department would need to install 52 monitors a month for the
next four years, though its current installation rate is 22 a month,
the report said.
Now, this is to determine whether radioactive material that could be
used in a dirty bomb is being detected. Now, by the way, if you happen
to live in Miami or if you are from Georgia, you should know that the
ports of Miami and Savannah, Georgia are among those without the
devices that they need. So if you should be living in those particular
States, be aware that you are vulnerable to have from the sea, through
the ports, material that could be used in a dirty bomb come into your
neighborhoods.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I want to comment. This is the same article, from
the GAO report, again, a third party validator, not from the 30-
Something Group.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, that is a Blumberg news agency.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. This is a Blumberg news article. Thank you.
This quote is from a retired Coast Guard Commander who is now a
Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Steven Flynn. ``Both
the opportunity for terrorists to target legitimate global supply
chains remain plentiful and the motivation for doing so is only
growing.''
We are living on borrowed time. And all we are saying here is that
the strategy from this administration is wrong. You cannot convince me,
Madam Speaker, that we could not marshal the resources of the United
States of America and focus this country's energy on the equipment, the
technology, the research that needs to be done to develop the newest
technologies, and put them where they need to be, you cannot convince
me that we could not do that, Mr. Meek. You cannot convince me that the
United States could not do that.
What we are saying here, and we are not here to pick on anybody, we
do not want to hurt anybody's feelings but it
[[Page H1189]]
seems that the end result can be tragic. And you know what, there may
be a situation where we do do all we can and it may not be enough. But
to sit here and see this haphazard garbage, lack of focus, this
administration has the worst case of political A.D.D. we have seen in a
long time and it is hurting the country.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Just put the facts out on the table. I just find it so
amusing when I hear that national security and homeland defense is
something that this side of the aisle, the Republican side of this
aisle, the majority that runs this House in conjunction with the
administration that is headed by a Republican President and a Senate
that has a majority of Republicans are suggesting that national
security and homeland defense are a priority, and yet study after
study, committee after committee reports that we are ill prepared.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Ryan, you talk about A.D.D.
and lack of focus in terms of making sure we can keep this Nation safe.
Lest people think that the DPW port deal was an isolated incident where
we think that that was an anomaly and we are not continuing down that
path of engaging foreign governments and the corporations they own to
help us with our national security or to be involved in our national
security, right after the withdrawal of DPW we learn, and through a
third party validator again, the Associated Press, that the
administration acknowledged that they issued a no-bid contract to
Hutchinson Whampoa Limited which represents the first time a foreign
company will be involved in running a sophisticated radiation detector
at an overseas port without American customs agents present.
I mean, what is going on?
We are from Florida. The Bahamas is 30 minutes by plane. It is really
unbelievable that there is an astonishing lack of concern about the
gaping holes in our national security that this administration appears
to have no qualms about leaving unprotected.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I think it was you, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, that alluded
earlier to the experience of Katrina and other national disasters. I
mean, there was a report issued again by a subcommittee of this House
that concluded that the response to Katrina was a failure of
leadership. I mean, that cannot be said any more succinctly or simply.
A member of the committee, again, a Republican, let me repeat that,
not a Democrat but a Republican, our colleague, Chris Shays from
Connecticut, said this: The report is very tough on the President. It
is very tough on the Department of Homeland Security. It is a
blistering report but I think it is fair.
The panel found that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was
detached, and that the then-FEMA Director Michael Brown was clueless,
Shays said. In one of the excerpts Chertoff was chided for executing
critical responsibilities late, ineffectively or not at all, according
to the report and to Mr. Shays.
{time} 2310
Yet, when I turn on any of the stations and the issue is homeland
security, the spokesman for the Homeland Security Department is often
Secretary Chertoff. So let us just continue along that road, and you
know what is going to happen? We are going to continue to find a
failure of leadership in every instance that this administration is
implicated in.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, last week, we had an opportunity,
Mr. Sabo from Minneapolis-St. Paul offered an amendment in this House
to add over $1 billion to port security, homeland security, in the
supplemental, and it got shot down on pretty much a party-line vote.
Time and time again, the Democratic Party has offered amendments in
committee to increase funding for homeland security, and the majority
side, time and time again, shoots down those amendments to add
additional funding. But if it comes to giving tax cuts to the
wealthiest people in the country, they are all standing, saying we have
got to go for it, but if we need an extra $1 billion for homeland
security, everyone heads for the hills, and they hide under the seats.
Here's a list, June 17, 2003, Mr. Obey from Wisconsin, increase port
and maritime security by $500 million. Republicans defeated the
amendment on a party-line vote.
June 24, 2003, another amendment by Mr. Obey, increase port and
maritime security again by $500 million. We are not even addressing the
problem. I mean, $7 billion more we need, $6- or $7 billion more just
to address what the Coast Guard is telling us we need. Mr. Obey is only
asking for $500 million, Madam Speaker. Republicans block consideration
of that amendment by a vote of 222-200. That is Rollcall vote 305,
Madam Speaker, and this other one was in the House Report 108-169, page
97, for the Members, Madam Speaker, who would like to look it up.
We are not making this up. You people want to know what the Democrats
want to do? We want to increase funding for port security, and the
Republican majority will not let us.
September 17, 2003, Mr. Obey, Mr. Sabo and Senator Byrd tried again
to increase funding to enhance port and maritime security, $475
million. Guess what happened, Madam Speaker. Republicans defeated this
amendment on a party-line vote. You want to know what the Democrats
want to do, Madam Speaker? We want to increase funding for port
security by half a billion dollars.
June 9, 2004, another amendment by Mr. Obey of Wisconsin in the
Appropriations Committee to increase port and container security by
$400 million. We are not asking for an arm and a leg here. We are still
$6.5 billion away from where we need to be, but we are just trying to
chip away. Throw us a bone. Help us out. We just want to get moving in
the right direction here. What happened again? Republicans defeated the
amendment on a party-line vote, House Report 108-541, page 128. Go look
it up.
I am quite frankly tired of hearing that the Democrats do not have an
agenda because every single day in committee, no matter what committee
it is, Appropriations Committee, Armed Services Committee, Education
Committee, Homeland Security Committee, we are trying to get things
done, and the Republicans block us every single time. This is what the
Democrats want to do and we are getting blocked.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, it comes down to who is telling
the truth and who is not. I mean, just because I may put something
behind me and say that I stand for homeland security, do I really stand
for homeland security? We are in the minority. When you are in the
minority, Madam Speaker, I think it is important for us to explain to
Members and staff, in case someone did not get the memo, that when you
are in the majority you set the agenda that comes to the floor. You
raise your hand thumbs up or thumbs down for your caucus to vote in the
way that you want them to vote, when I talk about the Republican
majority.
I think it is important for us to understand that the White House has
said, oh, we have a strategy for Iraq, and then we find out that they
all along never had a strategy.
Oh, we do not know anything about outing CIA agents. Some folks
forgot about that. We do not even know the lady's name. Later, we find
out through an independent investigative counsel that they knew
everything about it.
What are you talking about a port deal? We do not have any knowledge
of this. What is going on on this, someone told me in the hall. I mean,
they knew exactly what was going on and the reason why it is happening
and the reason why folks are getting away with it.
Like Secretary Rumsfeld, I am on the Armed Services Committee. It is
an outright joke, to come before an Armed Services Committee to tell us
whatever they want to tell us, and so shall it be written, so shall it
be done; why are you asking questions. Matter of fact, I am bothered to
come to Capitol Hill and have to respond to the Armed Services that
constitutionally you have oversight over the Department of Defense.
We have individuals that are in shirt and tie, have the look of
frustration. I mean, you are going to ask us? Yeah, we have a war, and
now, the President has just said, well, you know, as it relates to
troop withdrawal, I guess that is up to another President.
[[Page H1190]]
Mr. Ryan was talking about it earlier. He represents Youngstown.
Someone says, Congressman, are we ever going to have a strategy as it
relates to education?
Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, we never had a plan when we went in
there, let alone a strategy to leave.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Let me say. Mr. Ryan and I were talking a little
earlier, and it is like Mr. Ryan telling his constituents, well, I know
we have to have an education strategy, but that is not my job; that is
up to the next Congressman that represents Youngstown.
Madam Speaker, the reason why the President is saying whatever he
wants to say, when he wants to say it, is because this Republican
Congress has allowed him to say it and get away with it. Our job is not
the day-to-day operation of the war in Iraq. It is our job to bring in
this presidency, making sure that we are accountable to those troops
that are on the ground and our mission.
The bottom line is, what is our mission? I mean, these are the
individuals that gave this Congress bad information, and then the
minute that they gave the Congress bad information got away with it.
There were weapons of mass destruction. Then apologize, well, we got
bad information on weapons of mass destruction. I am sorry, you know,
hey, it happens, but individuals have died. Now, we have Iraqi troops
that are now being downgraded; they cannot even fight without U.S.
troops backing them up.
Then the Secretary says, well, you know, there may be a civil war.
There is a civil war going on in Iraq. Let us just say it. Let us put
it out there.
The coalition, you do not hear anything about the coalition getting
bigger and greater. No, it is not getting bigger and greater. Matter of
fact, the Brits are leaving this year and a number of other countries
have said, hey, you know, I am willing to take the training wheels off
the Iraqi Army.
Let me just say this, Madam Speaker, because I think that Mr. Ryan
laid it out so that everyone can understand. A new Member of Congress
could understand what you just set out.
The bottom line is that trying is not good enough. We need the
American people to chime in and make their Member of Congress stand up
on behalf of the American people. Mr. Ryan said correctly, and backed
it up with the Congressional Record, the fact that we have a Republican
majority that is more loyal to an individual riding around here making
$1 billion or $1 million a year or record profits, or whatever their
industry is, than they are committed to container security. It is not
just what Kendrick Meek is saying. That is the fact, and Mr. Ryan laid
it out, and yes, we do have a level of frustration.
Folks say you seem like you are upset. Well, we should be upset, and
I do not care if it is Democrat, Independent or Republican. Mr.
Delahunt said it earlier, as far as ports. Containers come into a port.
Guess what. There are trucks that they go on the back of and trains
that they go on the back of. They go throughout America, and next thing
you know, this issue makes it to the heartland or Sioux City, Iowa, or
whatever the case. The people may say, well, that is a coastal issue.
That is not a coastal issue. It is an American issue.
{time} 2320
And they have been allowed to do whatever they want to do, whenever
they want to do it because this Congress hasn't reined them in.
I am going to close in 1 second, but I just want to also point out,
Madam Speaker, since we are pointing out a few things here, that we
have turned on the lights here in the Chamber. This whole Dubai thing
and the Republicans marching around, ``We stopped that from happening;
we blocked that deal.'' Well, guess what, there were a couple of votes
before that where they tried to block it, but procedurally they blocked
the Democrats from doing that. It is not who blocked it, it is about
how we got there.
How did an under secretary level individual make this kind of
decision; the outsourcing of American Security? It happens every day,
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And I can tell you this, ``We are standing up to
the President.'' No, you are not standing up to the President. But
guess what? When all of America is standing on this side of the line
and saying, are you representing us or who are you representing, are we
standing up for Dubai?
What did the President say? I got a little confused there, Members. I
am sorry. The President said, well, we have got to keep our word. What
about keeping our word to the American people on security and health
care and all those things he talked about during the campaign? And all
the Republican Members won the majority because they said, trust us on
security, trust us on fiscal responsibility.
Don't get me started on fiscal responsibility. It is almost like the
guy running from the back of the class, who is an F student, who says I
want to be the valedictorian of the class because I say that I am. Did
not work, did not study, did not do the things that he needed to do to
be the top person in the class, but better yet, because they say it,
that makes it right.
What does this mean, Mr. Delahunt? This means if the American people
see fit that the Democrats are in charge of the Congress, that the
White House will not be making statements and saying, well, we have
said it publicly so that means you can't do anything about it,
Republican Congress.
And if folks want to talk about a Democratic plan in Iraq, it is
accountability, it is making sure we take these no-bid contracts and
put them on top of the table and really get down to the reason why we
are still in Iraq. I am just talking about what I am talking about, Mr.
Delahunt. I am not saying there are some shady deals, but there are a
number of articles that are out that are pointing to this.
Every day this stuff is coming out, Madam Speaker, and I think it is
very, very important that we focus in on that.
Mr. DELAHUNT. If I can just make an observation, Madam Speaker, I
asked my staff to count the number of hearings that the International
Relations Committee has conducted in terms of the United Nations and
the need to reform the United Nations, and also hearings that had a
focus on the so-called Oil-for-Food program. Throughout Congress there
were dozens of those hearings.
Do you know how many hearings we have had in the International
Relations Committee on the issue of corruption that we know is going on
in Iraq, Madam Speaker? Would you think maybe there have been 20 or 15
or five? No, there are none, despite repeated requests from Members of
this House. Not a single hearing into the corruption that many
different sources have acknowledged is rampant in Iraq in the past 3\1/
2\ years. Not a single one. Because this Congress is afraid. This
Congress is protecting the administration and is abrogating its
responsibility.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Make sure we are clear about which part of the
Congress is afraid and where the leadership has been exercised on our
side of the aisle in terms of that oversight and where it has been
shunned on the Republican side of the aisle, Mr. Delahunt.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Not a single hearing. Not a single hearing, Madam
Speaker. Not one.
Can anybody, can any Member, Republican or Democratic, please respond
and provide an explanation, when there have been reports after reports
after reports, indictments, reports from the special Inspector General
for Iraq reconstruction. It cries out for investigation. It cries out
for oversight, Madam Speaker.
You know, when the CPA, the Coalition Provisional Authority, came in,
and in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Saddam Hussein, and began
to administer as a viceroy, if you will, for the nation of Iraq, there
was $8.1 billion left over from the United Nations Oil-for-Food
program. There was an audit done subsequently. Not a single penny of
that $8 billion plus can be accounted for. That is outrageous.
Why haven't we heard from this Congress the need to conduct oversight
hearings? If the American people were aware of the requests that have
been made continuously to do the kind of work that we were elected to
do and is not being done, there would be outrage, Madam Speaker.
[[Page H1191]]
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I just want to piggyback on your observations.
I am the least senior of the four of us. I am a freshman, and about 15
months into my first term. We have talked many times on this floor in
our 30-something Working Group about the lack of outrage, the
astonishing lack of outrage, the deafening silence on the other side of
the aisle about all these things we are talking about.
Why no hearings? Where is the accountability? Why aren't they
demanding some answers from this administration about the results in
Iraq, about how we got into Iraq, about the leadup, about the fact
there were no weapons of mass destruction? And how come we haven't had
any hearings on the intelligence and whether that was manufactured, or
was it shaped around the decision that was already made clearly by this
administration? Not one hearing. Not one hearing on almost anything
since I have been in the United States Congress.
And what I have noticed, the observation I want to make is that we
have had a very slow but now more rapid deterioration of our system of
checks and balances. This Congress, the Republican leadership in this
Congress could care less about oversight. They would just cede the
whole ball of wax to this administration. This administration has run
amuck. That is how I really believe the American people feel. This
administration has been allowed to go unchecked, unresponsive. No one
asks any questions.
You know what was really ironic, what was really interesting, was
that it appears as though the outrage has built on the Republican side
of the aisle, our good friends on the Republican side of the aisle. I
noticed there was a whole lot of outrage that was cropping up all over
during the Dubai Worlds Port deal. That sense of outrage on that side
appeared to be in direct proportion to the reduction in the President's
polling numbers. The lower his numbers got, the more outrage there
appeared to be.
I think that it probably would be a little bit more comforting for
most Americans if the outrage was more consistent about Katrina and its
aftermath, about the war in Iraq, about the deficit, about the debt,
about the corruption, about the cronyism, and about the incompetence.
This administration has veered so far off to the right. There is a
stranglehold that the right has on the Republican leadership in this
country. They are so out of the mainstream now.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Not the right, if I can correct my friend and
colleague, but the far right.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The far right.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Not the traditional conservative Republicans that have
made an enormous contribution to this country and whom we respect, but
the radical neoconservatives.
And it is so interesting now to hear from those that were there right
after the inauguration talking about how at the first national Security
Council meeting, Madam Speaker, there was discussion about war and
going to Iraq and changing the regime and making it a national
priority.
{time} 2330
Again, if you want to get into competence, put aside whether you
supported going into Iraq. I happen to be opposed because this
administration in my view never made a case. But that is irrelevant.
Talk about lack of competence.
Let me refer you to a story that appeared in the New York Times about
a month ago. It states that the American general in charge of training
the new Iraqi military after Baghdad fell says the Bush administration
strategy to use those forces to replace departing American troops was
hobbled from its belated start by poor prewar planning and insufficient
staffing and equipment. The account by Major General Paul Eaton on
January 31, after 33 years in the Army, suggests that commanders in
Iraq might by now have been much closer to President Bush's goal of
withdrawing American forces if they had not lost so much time in the
first year to begin building a capable Iraqi force.
I am quoting a decorated American hero: ``We set out to man, train
and equip an army for a country of 25 million with six men.'' Referring
to General Eaton, he worked into the autumn with a revolving door of
individual lone talent that would spend between 2 weeks and 2 months
and never receive even half the 250 professional staff members he had
been promised. The general's assessment of the problems he confronted
was seconded by Walter Slocumb, sent by the Bush administration to
Baghdad 6 months to serve as the senior civilian adviser on national
security and defense.
Again, Mr. Slocumb, an Under Secretary in this administration said,
``I have to agree with General Eaton that it was hard to get the
resources we needed out there. There was not a broad enough sense of
urgency in Washington.''
And today we hear this President, this Secretary of Defense, talking
about the need to train Iraqis. Why didn't they listen to their own
military commanders, specifically the one that was in charge. He was
calling on them to do something and they turned a deaf ear, and we are
still in Iraq today because of their incompetence.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, the real issue is this. We want
to talk about listening to the military commanders on the ground. I
heard time after time again about oh, yes, whenever our commanders tell
us what we need, we will give it to them. Well, if it has anything to
do with America, if it had anything to do with Hurricane Katrina, and
all of America saw the video that Michael Brown, of all people, said,
Mr. President, we think that the levees will break. We think that we
need assistance immediately as it relates to evacuation. We need
resources. Silence.
Afterwards we have a partisan committee appointed by the majority,
and they have findings with no solutions.
Madam Speaker, I have a solution right here right now. The bottom
line, if we were in the majority, and this is not make believe, this is
a possibility, I believe those individuals who are not registered to
vote are going to register to vote to bring about some sort of change
from what is going on right now.
I feel very good Members coming to the floor and sharing with
American people, not just Democratic folk because if I wanted to just
share with Democratic folk, I would send some sort of blast e-mail out
to a Democratic list of individuals, or I would go down to the
Democratic National Committee and say I just want to do a Webcast and I
just want to talk to Democrats.
No, Madam Speaker, we committed to the American people that we would
uphold the Constitution and represent them, if they are Democrat,
Independent, nonvoter, Republican, whatever the case may be. They are
going to get representation. On this issue of national security and
accountability, this administration has moved in an unprecedented way
and is making history in the wrong areas, putting us in debt to foreign
countries that we have never been in debt to, but putting us in debt to
where it is going to be very difficult to get a plan to get out of
debt.
We on this side want to pay as we go. Mr. Ryan knows. Ms. Wasserman
Schultz knows, as does Mr. Delahunt. Once upon a time and youthful
indiscretions, hey, I was a little loose with the credit cards. I will
put my hand up. It happens. But I will tell you this, when those
creditors call your house, they disrespect you from hello. They do not
say, ``May I speak to Mr. Meek.'' They say, ``May I speak to Kendrick.
Is Kendrick home?'' That is what is going to happen.
I want to talk about the third-party validators. Let me move my
Republican rubber stamp; that is for later.
When we talk about this debt, it is wide open. I challenge, I will
say it again, I challenge any Member of the majority to come over and
take a mike and tell us how this can be positive for our country, for
us to be in debt to foreign nations.
I am going to put Canada up here. They are our neighbor. They own
$57.8 billion of our debt.
Taiwan, toys are made there, and some American flags are made there,
too. They own $71.3 billion of our debt.
The U.K. has decided to take the training wheels off the Iraqi
government and withdraw a number of their troops because they know it
is time for the Iraqis to stand up for themselves. They own $223.2
billion of our debt, and climbing.
[[Page H1192]]
Folks want to get all concerned, I know some folks who fought wars
before, Germany owns $6.57 billion of our debt.
Korea owns, and I know that is something to our veterans, too, $66.5
billion of our debt, U.S. debt they own.
OPEC nations, and Mr. Delahunt, please name a few of the OPEC nations
for us.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, there is Saudi Arabia. The gentleman remembers
Saudi Arabia because 15 of the 19 hijackers were citizens of Saudi
Arabia. Those are the 19 hijackers that were responsible for the deaths
of in excess of 3,000 Americans. Saudi Arabia is part of OPEC, and how
much money do we owe OPEC?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. We owe OPEC $67.8 billion, but let us not leave
Iraq and Iran and other countries that we have concern about where our
troops are getting sand in their teeth right now. Let us not leave them
out of the OPEC nations and allies and people of interest.
We have China, Red China, Communist China, China where U.S. workers
are training their replacements in China to take their jobs, to make
them unemployed. They own $249.8 billion of our debt.
And Japan, the island of Japan, they own $682.8 billion of our debt.
Now let me just say real quick to the Members, the Republicans have
voted to put this on a credit card. They voted to put us into debt with
interest. The Republican majority says we want to cut the budget in
half by, and I do not know what the new number is, 2010, 2020. We have
balanced the budget. The Democrats have balanced the budget. There is
no other party in this House that can claim that something has been
accomplished.
The bottom line is when these countries call in the tab on the United
States of America, what are they going to say? Are they going to say,
sir, ma'am? Or are they going to say ``pay me.'' They are going to
disrespect not only our seniors and others, but they are going to
disrespect future generations.
The bottom line is if the Republicans wanted to govern, they would
have done it by now. They set up the atmosphere to allow this
administration to be out of control.
{time} 2340
What are the Democrats going to do? We are going to bring them back
into control. We are going to make sure that we have accountability.
We are going to make sure that folks come to the Hill and talk about
why Osama Bin Laden is still running free. And without any great deal
of fear of U.S. troops bearing down upon him once upon a time, why is
he still out? Why is he still releasing audiotapes and videotapes and
recommending books for the American people to read to understand him
more.
The bottom line, Madam Speaker, people like Osama Bin Laden long ago
should have been tracked down and killed, period. That is just where it
is and that is what we need to move towards.
Mr. Ryan.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I appreciate that. And you know, as we are
beginning to wrap up here, I think it is important to make this point,
because I am sure you did, and you guys have experienced this too.
There is a certain level of frustration that I have because I feel like
our generation is getting dealt a pretty bad hand here.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Kicked in the teeth.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. As you just showed, we are mortgaging off our
future. This is public debt held by China that has quadrupled. We went
over that earlier in the evening. The debt limit has been increased by
$3 trillion just since President Bush has been in, $450,984,800 and
recently almost up to, almost up to $9 trillion in publicly held debt.
The war, I mean, this administration is strapping our generation with
debt, with war, with lack of investment, with increased tuition costs,
increased energy costs, millions of our fellow citizens without health
care. This administration and the Republican Congress is dealing our
generation a pretty bad hand.
And I started telling a lot of these student groups that come in and
out of here, we go to schools and talk, hey, it is going to be our
generation's responsibility, our life's work in this Congress, or
wherever we may end up, to try to fix this mess. And that is exactly
what it is.
I yield to my friend.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. And what just keeps striking me
about all of what we are saying is that it feels enveloped by the
stranglehold that is around this administration's neck by the far right
and that ideology, that the stranglehold of the far right on this
administration and this Republican leadership drives their
incompetence, drives their decisions on Iraq, drives their decisions on
Katrina, or lack thereof, drives their decisions on the deficit, on the
debt.
We talk about incompetence. We talk about corruption and cronyism and
incompetence, but you cannot detangle, disentangle their incompetence
and their ideology because the two are intertwined
Mr. MEEK of Florida. You are 110 percent right, Ms. Wasserman
Schultz.
We can't say it enough. The bottom line is the message that we are
giving out to the American people and to all the Republican majority:
As a matter of fact, we don't need permission from the Republican
majority to lead; we just need the numbers in this House to lead. And
we are leading in many ways.
We call the first play when it comes down to many of the pieces of
legislation that move through this House of Representatives and
bringing some level of accountability to it. Sometimes we are
successful, Madam Speaker, in getting an amendment or two onto a piece
of legislation because it is so abundantly clear the reason why they
are useful to a piece of legislation. But why does it have to be
abundantly clear? Why can't it just be good governance? Why can't it
just be a bipartisan approach?
I will tell you, and I commit, Mr. Ryan, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr.
Delahunt, when we get in the majority which--I believe the American
people will start asking questions and will take action against those
that are allowing this history in all the wrong ways to take place, and
elect Democrats to be able to allow us to come here and run this House
in the way that all the American people can be proud and feel
accountable, we will not bow down to the strong special interests and
say, well, wait, we have to take care of them and then we will take
care of you. And when we come down to take care of you, we are going to
question you about why you need this assistance. And so I think it is
important that we go through that.
As we make closing comments here, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I don't know
if you closed but you can go ahead.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I will close just by saying this. It would be
one thing, and the American people, I know, are understanding this and
have an ever-growing understanding with every day that passes and they
observe this administration and the Republican leadership here.
It would be one thing if they had the confidence that, you know, they
could just sub out the Republican individuals here and sub in another,
a different Republican and get a more competent person. Unfortunately,
it is not just that the individuals here are incompetent or that this
administration is led by incompetence. It is that the ideology and the
incompetence are so intertwined that it doesn't matter which Republican
you swap in.
We have seen the board lit up here where you have moderate
Republicans, arms wrenched behind their back when they are trying to
express what is supposedly their conscience, and instead they are
forced to vote according to the ideological stranglehold that is around
the neck of the Republican leadership and the Republican Party. And so
it doesn't matter who you swap in and out. If the ideology doesn't
change, which it is clearly not going to, then you will just get more
the same. Just like you will have more of the same in swapping the
individual, one individual for another in the White House, as the
President did today, and what you would see if we didn't make the
change that is so necessary with the leadership in this country.
I appreciate the opportunity to join my colleagues here again in the
30-something Working Group.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Delahunt, we are making closing comments,
sir.
[[Page H1193]]
Mr. DELAHUNT. You know what I also find disturbing and it really
provokes a certain, let me use the word ``disgust.'' When the
administration is criticized, particularly some individuals, rather
than speak of the policy, they speak in a language that refers to
``them'' or ``those'' or ``some,'' never identifying ``them'' or
``those'' or ``some.'' It is a particular trait of Secretary Rumsfeld.
Actually, in today's Washington Times, there is a story about a speech
that the Secretary gave to military officers at the Army War College.
Let me just quote from the story.
``Defense Secretary Rumsfeld delivered harsh words to war critics
yesterday saying, `Some view al Qaeda operatives as victims.''' That is
really unfortunate, because I would call on the Secretary to have the
courage to stand up and identify who those ``some'' are. I dare say
there is not a single Member in this House, Madam Speaker, that would
view an al Qaeda operative as a victim. That is just simply
disingenuous and certainly I would suggest demeans the office of the
Secretary of Defense.
Who are ``some,'' Madam Speaker? Not any American that I know, Madam
Speaker. None. But if an American wants to criticize this war, this
policy, this mismanagement by this Secretary of Defense, not only are
they entitled to do it, Madam Speaker, they are obligated if they
embrace everything that America stands for.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. As we wrap up, www.housedemocrats.gov/30something.
{time} 2350
All of the charts, Madam Speaker, that we used here tonight are on
this Web site for the Members to review and check out.
And again, in closing, before my friend wraps this up, I think again
this administration, this Republican Congress, has really put the next
generation behind the 8-ball with the war, with the debt, with the
income inequality that has not been at this level of separation of the
richest to the poorest since before World War II, and all the other
issues we talked about. And I think it is unfair to do that to the next
generation.
America has always been about making the next generation better. And,
hopefully, with our advice and counsel, this Republican majority will
take that and move forward.
If I do not get a chance to tell you guys, Go Gators.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. Go Gators.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. To the distinguished gentleman from
Massachusetts and also the gentleman from Ohio and the gentlewoman from
Florida, I just want to say that our whole reason for coming to the
floor is to be able to share with the Members what is happening right
now under the Capitol dome, not what happened 6 months ago, but what is
happening today or a couple of days ago, and about how we can correct
ourselves.
The other message is letting not only other Members know, Madam
Speaker, but the American people know that we are ready to lead. I
always use the football analogy by saying, I am going to buy Debbie
Wasserman Schultz a mouthpiece because she is ready to go. And I can
tell you, there are a number of people, Madam Speaker, who are ready to
lead.
Have you ever heard of ``lead or get out of the way''? We are willing
to do that. Do you want to talk about plans? This is just one binder of
plans. Do you want to talk about innovation? Do you want to talk about
homeland security? Do you want to talk about Iraq? Do you want to talk
about education? Do you want to talk about health care? Do you want to
talk about respecting our veterans and giving them the health care that
we said we would give them? Do you want to talk about military families
being dealt with in a way that they should be dealt with; and the men
and women who are in harm's way, equipment for our troops? Do you want
to talk about those things?
Well, other folks can talk about it. We are ready to act.
The only thing that is stopping us right now, Madam Speaker, are a
couple of votes on this floor. And we want the American people and we
want the majority to know that we are not on their heels, we are in
front of them on this issue. And that is the only thing that is
stopping us.
Now, either one of two things is going to happen. Either there are
going to be some of our friends on the other side of the aisle saying,
I am going to join with the Democrats and we are going to be bipartisan
and we are going to do what we have to do on behalf of this country, or
some individuals on the other side of the aisle, with all due respect
to the gentlemen and the gentlewomen on the other side, are going to be
unelected and we will lead. And we will show the American people, Madam
Speaker, how we want to govern.
With that, we want to thank the Democratic leadership for allowing us
to be here.
____________________