[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 112 (Tuesday, September 12, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H6412-H6419]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: September 12, 2006 (House)]
[Page H6412-H6419]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr12se06-138]
30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP
The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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, it is an honor to come before the
House once again. As you know, the 30-something Working Group works
very hard in making sure that we bring issues that are not only facing
the American people on the positive and negative end, but we make sure
we encourage the Members of the House to do the right thing.
I must say, Madam Speaker, that Mr. Delahunt had a birthday the last
time we were on the floor, a little over a month ago, and I just had a
birthday. I am going to be a part of the something side of the 30-
something group, and I am excited about that. Ms. Wasserman Schultz
will be joining the something side pretty soon, and Mr. Ryan will be
the true blue 30.
Let me just say that a lot has happened, Mr. Delahunt, and I am glad
that the Democratic leader, Ms. Pelosi, allowed us to have this hour
tonight, and also working with Mr. Hoyer, our Democratic whip, and Mr.
James Clyburn, our chairman, and Mr. John Larson, the vice chair of our
caucus, to come to the floor not only on behalf of Democrats but also
on behalf
[[Page H6413]]
of the American people. I think it is very, very important in this
time, the day after 9/11, 5 years later.
Mr. Delahunt, I had the opportunity to go over to New York City. I
flew in on the 10th to be there on 9/11. Of course, I wasn't there 5
years ago, but I wanted to be there on the fifth anniversary, and I can
tell you that going there and seeing the ceremony, having an
opportunity to see the reflection pool where those families were
placing their flowers and notes and what have you there, and seeing, as
I was going through Manhattan, that at, I believe, 8:46 and a little
after 9 a.m. the firefighters standing in front of their fire stations
at attention at the time that tower one and tower two went down, and
just talking to some of the New Yorkers that were there at that time,
great Americans that were there 5 years ago, and listening to their
reflecting on what they were doing at the time the towers went down, it
takes me back to when it actually took place, Madam Speaker.
At that time, Madam Speaker, this country was in a position to lead
the world in the right direction as it relates to the effort against
terrorism, when we had the opportunity to ask Americans to do things
that they wouldn't ordinarily do but would understand that in coming
together as a country just days after that it was a time of unity. It
was a time of bipartisanship.
And I know on the steps yesterday that Members came together. I was
in New York, Mr. Delahunt, and I don't know if you had an opportunity
to join in the bipartisan effort here, the singing of God Bless
America, and just all coming together, but I couldn't help, as a
policymaker, Mr. Delahunt, thinking about, as I was asked yesterday by
the media what I thought and how I felt. I said, I want it to reflect
on the memory of those who lost their lives, those who are survivors of
9/11, whether it be the Pentagon, or Pennsylvania, or New York City,
how they feel about the loss of their husband, wife, father, uncle,
grandfather, grandmother, or friend. It really wasn't a day for
politics. It was a day to reflect on the memory of those individuals.
Now, we are here, the day after, but even the day before, and the
year before, and 2 years before the fifth anniversary, 3 years before
the fifth anniversary we had a 9/11 Commission that was convened, that
Democrats on this floor and over in the Senate pushed for, and some
Republicans. Not the Republican leadership, because they didn't feel we
needed it at that time. And also the surviving family members, Mr.
Delahunt. And you were here.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I am sure that yesterday in New York had to be an
experience that was poignant and emotional, but I think it is important
to set the record straight, because 9/11 was a significant historical
event in American history, and I think we have to credit the families
of the victims of 9/11 for insisting upon the creation of an
independent commission, a commission that was bipartisan, that issued a
report that I think clearly most Americans would embrace as accurate
and factual.
And it is really unfortunate that the majority of recommendations
made by that distinguished group have not been implemented. That is why
when we hear a discussion about the war on terror and what kind of
action, or let me rephrase that, how we are doing in terms of defeating
terrorism, if one looks at the report card subsequently issued by the
9/11 Commission, we note failures and poor grades. And I think it
really is unfortunate in light of the spirit you described when the
country was united, when in fact the whole world was united in support
of the United States.
I am sure you remember the controversies that erupted about a year or
2 afterward between France and the United States. I always note that it
was the French paper of record, Le Monde, that had as its headline
``Today We Are All Americans,'' and how that support, that political
support has dissipated, has gone. Now we have a country, our own
country, where there is a legitimate question as to whether we are
being successful in advancing our national security interests in terms
of terrorism.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. If I can, Mr. Delahunt, I am on the Homeland
Security Committee, as you know, Oversight Integration Management
Subcommittee, which I am serving as the ranking member on, and I am
also on the Armed Services Committee. And I wonder, these two national
security committees, as I was speaking to some of the family members,
and I was speaking to New Yorkers yesterday, as we read the stories and
watched television about what actually happened 5 years ago, what has
happened since? We owe it to Americans to be able to carry out the
security plan that was laid out by the 9/11 Commission.
{time} 2210
The 9/11 Commission received the respect of all Americans on a
bipartisan basis. If you are a Republican, you have to agree with the
9/11 Commission report. If you are a Democrat, you have to agree. If
you are an Independent, if you are an American, you have to agree with
the 9/11 Commission report.
But here in Washington, I don't believe we have, and when I say
``we,'' I am not talking about the Democrats in this House because we
are solid on this issue. I am talking about the Republican majority. I
don't believe the will and the desire is there to implement the 9/11
Commission recommendations.
Here is the bottom line: the 9/11 Commission put forth Ds and Fs for
homeland security for this administration and the Republican Congress.
If Democratic amendments were adopted, there would be 6,600 more Border
Patrol agents. Americans are concerned about protecting our borders.
There would be 4,000 more detention beds, 270 more immigration
enforcement agents along the borders that would exist today, not in
fiction or theory, today, if Democratic amendments were adopted.
Only 6 percent of the containers right now, and nuclear weapons can
be in these containers in a port. Some may say that is a coastal issue
where we have seaports. No, those containers are loaded onto trucks and
trains and moved into the heartland of America. They could go off. This
is something that has been identified by the 9/11 Commission.
If Democrats had the opportunity to be able to have an amendment on
the floor or a bill on the floor or a bill in committee, that would
pass by majority, and when I say majority, the Republican majority
would allow to pass, America would be safer now because we are calling
for full implementation of 9/11 Commission recommendations, 100 percent
container screening prior to the containers going across and throughout
America.
I think it is very, very important to let it be known that we owe
that to the first responders. We owe that to Americans to protect them.
We don't need to wait until a container blows up in a major port to say
we should have full screening. If other countries can do it, we can do
it with the right will and desire.
I was here earlier and heard majority Members talking about we are
for security, we are for tracking down Osama bin Laden. We are for
going after the terrorists.
Well, the majority has been in the majority for 12 years. Now all of
a sudden the majority has religion saying we are going to track down
these terrorists. The Democrats can't do it, but we can do it.
If somebody had a job in your office, Mr. Delahunt, and they said I
know you want me to respond to your constituents. I haven't been able
to respond to them in the way you want me to. I know you want me to get
10 letters out in a day, but I have only got one letter out over a day
the last 12 years. But if you let me stay in your office 2 more years,
I guarantee you I will get those 10 letters out.
Now, anyone who is a manager and knows that folks have to be served
knows you can't live with that. As a matter of fact, a staffer would
never have made it to 12 years in your office if they only put out one
constituent response a day. They would have to perform.
Well, what the Republican majority is doing is coming to the floor
and saying we can do this. The Democrats can't do it. As a matter of
fact, double digits year ago, here is an instance where the Democrats
didn't do it. We are ready to do it.
Mr. Delahunt, as I yield to you, I am saying it is almost laughable.
If it was not national security, it would be
[[Page H6414]]
laughable. I am hoping that the American people, and I hope that the
members of the majority caucus don't go to bed thinking that because
they were not able to get it right for the last 12 years that year 13
and 14 they are going to get it right. We can't afford to wait. That is
the reason why the American people poll after poll after poll are
saying we are willing to allow the Democrats to lead this Congress.
Madam Speaker, you are going to hear many Members on the majority
side that are going to come here and make statements that they know are
not true. They are going to try to find something in 1980 where there
was some fumble in government and say see what the Democrats did in
1950-something. They cannot say in the 1990s because they were in
control. They can't say in 2000 because they have been in control. They
can't say any of those things because all of these fumbles and follies
and mistakes occurred on their watch with a lack of oversight.
I am glad we are here to set the record straight.
Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman would yield for a minute, and I know
that Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz will engage, but, you know, what
the administration has attempted to do is to confuse the war on terror
with the war in Iraq. They are totally different.
I think it is very important to note that almost unanimously this
House voted to support military action against the Taliban government
that existed in 2001 and 2002 in Afghanistan because they allowed Osama
bin Laden and his al Qaeda group to train. And they provided Osama bin
Laden and the al Qaeda group to utilize their territory as a safe haven
for attacks against the United States of America on September 11. That
is irrefutable.
And where are we today in terms of Afghanistan? Let me tell you where
we are today. If you just bear with me for a moment, the Taliban is
resurging. Just today, September 12, a letter was circulated by the
chairman of the House International Relations Committee, a senior
Member of this House, the well-respected gentleman from Illinois, Henry
Hyde. This is a letter that he and another colleague, a Republican,
Mark Kirk, also of Illinois, sent to the President:
``United States efforts in Afghanistan are failing.'' I'm quoting
from that letter: ``Drug money continues to finance terrorism. That
failure, coupled with the aggressive efforts of the terrorists,
threaten to destroy Afghanistan's nascent democracy, a free government
that Americans and coalition forces have died to support. To succeed in
Afghanistan, we need to change our failing strategies.''
Let me submit this as exhibit A in terms of the realities on the
ground in Afghanistan where, back before 9/11, al Qaeda trained and was
provided a safe haven by the Taliban government that we defeated. It
would appear that we only defeated them temporarily because now they
are back and we have a British general, Brigadier General Brooks, the
head of the NATO contingent there, saying send help quickly or we will
lose the moment.
This is being reported today, 5 years after 9/11. The threat of
terrorism is greater today than it was on 9/11 and before 9/11, and we
left Afghanistan because it was an obsession on the part of this
administration to attack Iraq, and we have been mired in Iraq since the
invasion in 2003.
And do you know what we have achieved in Iraq, Mr. Meek? Ms.
Wasserman Schultz? I think a picture says more than I can say. Let me
put this poster so you can both see it with your eyes.
Mr. Meek, do you recognize this gentleman?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Yes, I do, Mr. Delahunt.
{time} 2220
Mr. DELAHUNT. Would you tell me who he is?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. The President of Iran.
Mr. DELAHUNT. The President of Iran.
Do you know who the gentleman is next the too him?
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is the Prime Minister of Iraq.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Do you know when this picture was taken? This picture
was taken today, today. So with the loss of almost 2,700 American
military personnel, Madam Speaker, in the expenditure of hundreds of
billions of dollars, what is the reality in the region today?
There is the reality in the Middle East today. Take a good look. The
Prime Minister of Iraq and the Prime Minister of Iran with their hands
firmly grasping each other. Need we say anything more?
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Delahunt, let me ask you a question. This
is the 30-Something Working Group, and I can tell you that when our
generation was going through high school, and, really, even college,
was that a picture that you would ever have seen? My recollection is
that Iran and Iraq were bitter enemies and were locked in a lengthy,
deadly war for many, many years.
So are you saying that what the Bush administration's policies in the
Middle East, particularly in Iraq and towards Iran, that that handshake
is the result of those policies that the Bush administration's actions
in the Middle East have done more to bring Iran and Iraq together than
any of the actors in the Middle East could ever have done?
Mr. DELAHUNT. What I am suggesting is the greatest beneficiary of the
military invasion of Iraq by the United States is the Islamic Republic
of Iran.
Madam Speaker, you must remember, of course, when the President of
the United States in his State of the Union address came to this floor
and said there is an axis of evil club out there, and it is Iraq, Iran
and North Korea.
Well, you know what? I hope the American people take a good look at
this picture.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. If we can focus on this picture here, Ms.
Wasserman Schultz, you raised a very good question, because when Mr.
Ryan and I went to Iraq, we went through the whole Saddam Hussein
parade area where they have the podium, usually he would have the gun,
and the troops would be marching which, and they will be, you know,
whatever, little missile that they may have, will parade on along.
But as you go into that parade route, the helmets of Iranian soldiers
that were killed by Iraqi soldiers, are embedded into the ground of
that parade route so that they can step on the helmets, which, in the
Middle East, is disrespect when you take the bottom of your shoe, and,
you know, like, slap it or hit a picture or image of someone. That's
the kind of hatred that these two countries have for one another.
Let me also say, which is also important, that Iraq and Iran, it is
interesting that Iran, a lot of the insurgents, are coming across from
Iraq and Syria and other countries into Iraq. That has never happened
before prior to the U.S. invasion. There are a number of other things
that are false, but I would go back even further.
I am no longer, as a Member of Congress, concerned about what happens
in the White House as it relates to the President's decisions. I am
concerned, as what is not happening here in this Chamber, and what is
not happening in the other Chamber, as it relates to the oversight in
the war on Iraq.
I am very concerned about that because in our Constitution, could
someone just bring the Constitution in. I want to hold it up for a
moment so we are reminded it is not just a rough draft, it is something
that people died for and defended in this country the Constitution
calls for three plans of government. When someone tramples a U.S. code
or Constitution, it is the Supreme Court that is supposed to stand up
on their behalf.
When we have a White House that is willing to do anything they have,
and you have a rubber stamp Congress, I missed my rubber stamp during
the break, a rubber stamp Congress that is rubber stamping everything
this administration does, that is what you get.
You get those kinds of pictures, you get Members of the majority side
coming to the floor saying things they know are not true, with all due
respect. I don't mean to say this. The American people know the facts
are here, they pick up the paper, they watch the news. I just wanted to
say that conflict that you pointed out saying how did this happen.
I mean, that is worse than a family feud. This goes back for years
and
[[Page H6415]]
years and years. Now, I have my Constitution here. The bottom line is,
we need to follow this. People need to vote for the Constitution. You
need to vote for what we said we wanted in this country, what we stand
for and people have died for. We need to make sure that we bring
balance back.
Mr. DELAHUNT. The people in this country need to vote for a Congress
that will ask those questions. How did we get him? How did we arrive
here?
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Let me tell you, at least it didn't take me
long to break the code, because my whole formative life, the formative
years of my life, that picture would never have occurred. Every day in
the news you heard about the death toll and how these two countries
were locked in the heat of battle.
Remember, Saddam Hussein was Sunni, and the leadership of Iran was
Shiite. It could have been hundreds, if not thousands of years of
religious conflict.
You know the expression, I am reminded of the expression, which isn't
a nice expression but I have certainly heard it used, the friend of my
enemy is my enemy. Well, that picture is the result of the enemy of my
enemy is my friend. That is what that picture is right there.
Of course, the leadership of Iraq now is Shiite. So we have actually
destabilized, and I am not just saying this as Debbie Wasserman
Schultz's opinion, the middle eastern experts on terrorism and on
middle eastern history have actually said that what we did hear, what
the Bush administration's policies resulted in, is a destabilization.
Because previously you had a balance of power with Sunnis in charge in
Iraq, Shiites in charge in Iran, essentially to oversimplify it, and
now you have almost complete domination by Shiites.
So you are having a region that is descending into civil war, I mean,
they are there. We don't really have to wring our hands too much
moreover whether or not they are in the middle of a civil war and we
are immersed in the middle of their civil war.
Mr. DELAHUNT. What is very interesting is that you talk about civil
war. There was a story recently, and I had it with me, that described
interviews with American soldiers on the ground, not generals, back in
headquarters, and testifying before House and Senate committees, but
the troops on the ground, and I will find the quote, because there were
several of them, that said, there is a civil war going on and we are in
the middle of it.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So, there is no question.
Mr. DELAHUNT. But, if I may, if I may, this picture, it explains it
so well, and it explains the report, for example, from a highly
respected British think tank.
{time} 2230
If I just might take a few seconds just to read certain extracts:
``The Royal Institute of International Affairs concludes that Iran,
despite being a part of U.S. President Bush's Axis of Evil, has been
the chief beneficiary of the war on terror in the Middle East. Of
particular note is Iran's influence in Iraq. Chatham House argues that
the greatest problem,'' listen to this carefully, please, my friends,
``the greatest problem facing the U.S. is that Iran has superseded
it,'' meaning the United States, ``as the most influential power in
Iraq.''
Their conclusion is that ``in today's Iraq, Iran has more influence
than the United States. This influence has a variety of forms, but all
can be turned against the U.S. presence in Iraq with relative ease and
it almost certainly would heighten U.S. casualties to the point where a
continued presence might not be tenable.''
This is where we find ourselves today because of the misguided
policies and the obsession with war in Iraq that was embraced by this
administration, by the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary
of Defense.
And today, today, what happened in the conversation between the
President of Iran and the Prime Minister of Iraq? Well, here is what
happened. This is the news report that goes with this photograph:
``Iran offered on Tuesday to help establish security and stability in
Iraq after Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki held talks in Tehran on his
first official visit. `We will give our full assistance to the Iraqi
government to establish security in Iraq. Strengthening security in
Iraq means strengthening security and stability in the region,'
Ahmadinejad told a joint news conference after their meeting. The two
sides signed an agreement covering these areas.
``The Prime Minister of Iraq had this to say: `This visit will be
useful for cooperation between Iran and Iraq in all political,
economic, and,''' listen carefully my friends, ``'security fields.
``Tomorrow Mr. Maliki meets with the Supreme Leader Ayatollah
Khamenei, the highest authority in Iran, and influential former
President Rafsanjani on Wednesday.''
What we see here I would suggest is a new relationship, let's call it
an alliance, between Iran and Iraq. Remember, these two countries have
signed a military cooperation agreement between themselves. Iranians
are building a pipeline from Basra to Iran.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If the gentleman will yield, because you talk
about the obsession that the Bush administration has engaged in with
this war in Iraq, and Iraq generally has been this President's
obsession, and what that has resulted in is a total absence of
attention and focus on homeland security here.
If our good friends on the other side of the aisle, Mr. Meek, want to
make this election a referendum, a local referendum on the individual
Members of Congress standing for reelection on their side of the aisle,
we will give them a referendum, because on every measure in terms of
who is committed to securing our borders and making sure that our
homeland is secure, it is us as Democrats that have proposed solutions
and the Republicans that have rejected them.
Let's just walk through this. I have some graphics that will walk
through where we are with the Republicans' leadership on homeland
security and where we would take us, and Mr. Meek I know has some
interesting things to highlight as well as far as the opinion leaders
in this country on both sides of the aisle.
Yesterday, let me just share with you, yesterday we were home in our
districts and had an opportunity and a privilege to commemorate the
tragedy that was 9/11 from the 5-year anniversary, and learned some
very disturbing things.
The question that was perpetually asked, Mr. Meek and Mr. Delahunt, I
am sure you were asked the same question, all that anyone wanted to
know all day yesterday was, Debbie, are we really safer? After all,
that has been talked about and funded, supposedly. Are we safer?
The answer, really, was depending on who you asked. According to the
sheriff of Broward County, Ken Jenne, our sheriff in our community, we
are safer in some ways. But the only reason we are safer in my
community in south Florida and Mr. Meeks's community is because our
local government, not our Federal funding, our local government has
stepped up and cooperated.
Mr. Meek, do you know that Sheriff Jenne told us at the HAZMAT
demonstration that we had at the fire station in Weston that only 15
percent of their homeland security funding comes from the Federal
Government, comes from us? 15 percent. And the equipment that they
have, the gaps that they have exist because we don't give them what
they need.
They actually have to take out equipment and personnel to train for
on this hazardous material equipment. When they do that, they have to
take an entire battalion out of commission and they don't have the
personnel that are there to do the regular, everyday emergency
response. And what has the Bush administration done and our Republican
rubber-stamping friends done? Eliminate the SAFER Program, which funds
career firefighter slots and volunteer firefighter slots, so that we
can make sure that we have those personnel online and so that we can
have the homeland security training that is necessary. Because you
can't just take a firefighter without their ladder, without their
equipment. They have to actually use the equipment to train on.
So today our borders remain porous. Not everything has been done to
prevent another attack. America is not prepared to respond to another
attack, particularly if it comes at our ports, at our train stations,
at so many of the places that we just essentially have
[[Page H6416]]
thrown up our hands, at least on the Republican side of the aisle, and
said, you know, we are fighting the war in Iraq, and we have to take
the war to the terrorists. Every expert agrees that the war on
terrorism is not in Iraq.
But let's look at where we are right now and where we would take us.
Right now, less than 6 percent of U.S. cargo is physically inspected;
95 percent is not inspected. That is when we are talking about the
cargo that comes through our seaports and the cargo that goes in the
belly of airplanes. So that is problem number one.
Let's look at how this Republican Congress has shortchanged port
security by more than $6 billion. If you look at what the Coast Guard
estimate was to implement the Maritime Transportation Security Act,
which we adopted after 9/ 11, they said they needed over $7 billion.
Our actual congressional appropriations has been $900 million. That is
a huge, huge disparity. There is no way that those gaps have been
filled. That means that we are still extremely vulnerable.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Can I just suggest, just on those two items alone, I
would submit that that is disgraceful.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is disgraceful.
Mr. DELAHUNT. That is the only adjective that comes to mind.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. They have the nerve to stand on this floor and
say that they would be better on national security and they would keep
Americans safer and that is why they would deserve to be returned to
office? Give me a break.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. The Republican majority, that is ``they.''
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. They claim they would be better, the
Republican majority, than we would be on national security.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. We got ``they'' from Mr. Gingrich, because that
is what he is calling the Republican majority now, ``they.''
{time} 2240
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you for helping me clarify that
definition. ``They'' is the Republican majority, who controls
everything here and has the ability to do any of this at a moment's
notice but instead has actually rejected our proposals to tighten
homeland security and fund homeland security. We have been fighting for
port security while Republicans have been voting against it.
Here are the date-by-date instances in which we have proposed
additional funding for port security and, unanimously, the Republicans
have rejected it on a party-line vote, time after time: September 17,
2003; June 9, 2004. You could keep going. June 18, 2004; October 7,
2004. These are all instances. September 29, 2005; March 2, 2006. All
of these going down on party-line votes. And there are others. I mean,
look, I had to use three boards just to show you just a handful of the
times that we have proposed enhanced port security and border security
and they rejected it, ``they'' being the Republicans as defined by the
dictionary written by Newt Gingrich.
Now, let us look at border security, Mr. Delahunt. They claim to be
the ones that are tough on border security, that they want immigration
reform that is going to secure our borders first. Let us take a walk
down memory lane where the Democratic administration under President
Clinton was in terms of securing our borders and being committed to
that versus the Bush administration. Let us look at the average number
of new Border Patrol agents added per year. We passed a bill out of
here that would make felons of all 11 million illegal immigrants here,
and supposedly they would, I guess, deport themselves at that point,
and they talk about how important it is for us to add border security
agents. Well, that is really nice, except that the little problem is
that the facts get in the way when it comes to who is committed to
doing that.
Mr. DELAHUNT. But they are really tough on the borders.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. They are so tough on the border, Mr. Delahunt.
Mr. DELAHUNT. They talk tough.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. They talk tough but action is absent. When
President Clinton was in office, the average number of new Border
Patrol agents added every year was 642. And from 2001 to 2005, the Bush
administration added 411, aided by the Republican Congress.
Mr. DELAHUNT. About a third less; is that fair?
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. About a third less than was added under the
Clinton Democratic administration. How about INS, which is now called
CIS, the Immigration and Naturalization Service fines for immigration
enforcement, meaning that they would go out and actually fine employers
for hiring illegal immigrants and pursuing the hiring of illegal
immigrants. Under the Clinton administration in 1999, there were 417
employers fined for immigration violations.
Mr. DELAHUNT. If I could ask a question because I just find this
stunning. How many enforcement actions against employers were brought
in the year 2000 by the Bush administration?
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. In 2000, after 417 being brought in 1999,
there were only three.
Mr. DELAHUNT. My math might not be good but that is less than 1
percent.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Three.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Less than 1 percent. And this is the crowd, this is the
crowd that is talking about border enforcement. We have to enforce our
borders. But the truth is that there is a lot of talk, a lot of
rhetoric, a lot of hot air, and when it comes down to doing it,
Democrats have stood tall and have been willing to put the resources
into doing exactly that.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are absolutely right. And we are not done
there. I am going to go on and then bring it in for a landing, and
yield to either Mr. Ryan or Mr. Meek. But 78 percent fewer completed
immigration fraud cases. When you are investigating immigration fraud
as to whether or not someone belongs here, whether they have actually
legally applied for residency, permanent or otherwise, for a green
card, the number of cases that were pursued that were fraud cases in
1995, and, Mr. Ryan, who was President in 1995?
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Bill Clinton.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And was Bill Clinton a Republican or a
Democrat?
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Democrat.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. Well, that is what I thought. How about
in 2003? In 2003, after 6,455 immigration fraud cases were pursued
under the Clinton Democratic administration, 1,389 in 2003 were
pursued.
And, Mr. Ryan, who was President in 2003?
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. George Bush, the second.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Is he a Republican or a Democrat?
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Republican.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Okay. So now we can see, very graphically and
specifically and factually, who is for enhancing our borders and
protecting our homeland security and who just talks about it.
So, Mr. Meek, what we would do is we have a real security agenda, a
real security agenda that we have proposed in the mandatory process
that has been rejected by our Republican colleagues and that we will
implement once we control the Congress after November 7. Here are some
of the things that we would do: We would provide first responders with
the equipment and the training that they need and the resources that
they need to respond to a terrorist attack, and we would not have to
hear when we go home from our local first responders that they have to
choose between training and general, normal emergency response. I mean
this is our real security agenda right here. It is available on our Web
site. Anyone can access it. It also will be available in Spanish.
Actually, it is available in Spanish, as we speak.
In addition to that, we would push for stronger transportation and
critical infrastructure that is required for security planning and
support. We have got to have our security personnel able to move around
and be able to actually get to the places that security needs to be
enhanced. We would secure the border for real. We would fund it. We
would put the Border Patrol agents on the border. We wouldn't need to
call out the National Guard to provide additional border security
because we would actually pay for it because we have our priorities
straight. We would work to strengthen the intelligence community and
its ability to share information.
[[Page H6417]]
Mr. Meek, what blew my mind, and you are the ranking member on the
Oversight Subcommittee of the Committee on Homeland Security; so you
know this better than anyone, we do not have that interoperability
communication. We still do not have the ability of all first responders
to talk to each other. That is something else I learned yesterday. We
would make sure that happens. That was a 9/11 recommendation, one of
the Ds and Fs that the Republicans were given for not implementing the
9/11 recommendations. We would make sure that the war on terror was
fought where it belongs. And there are many more ways in which we would
implement a real security agenda.
And, Mr. Ryan, we are glad you are here and welcome back to you as
well.
Mr. DELAHUNT. We are glad you made it.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. It is good to be back. There are several things
that I want to touch upon after hearing some of the comments that have
been made.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, you may want to suspend for a minute.
You may want to switch. I do not think that you have what you need to
have.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I think I am taken care of. The crack staff here at
the 30-Something Working Group. I thought maybe you missed my being
over in the other part of the well, and this made me nervous because I
know how you like things the way you like them. Very habitual.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, we are showing you a level of respect
here today.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I think it is important that we
focus on what Ms. Wasserman Schultz said and what has been said by
several of my colleagues here, Mr. Delahunt and the gentleman from
Florida, and after watching the weekend shows and going through the
pain and angst of trying to decipher reality from fiction, I think it
is important that we do not get to a point in this country where,
because there has not been a terrorist attack in the past few years,
that somehow that makes everything okay. We are combating an enemy here
that their ability to wait and then strike is staggering. They are
patient people. The last terrorist strike prior to September 11, 2001,
was in 1993, 8 years prior. So to say we are doing everything right, as
was stated on one of the weekend shows by a major member of this
administration, I think does not show the kind of responsibility and
the kind of urgency that I think Ms. Wasserman Schultz pointed out.
With border security, we do not know who is coming over the borders.
They may be coming through Mexico, but it does not mean they are
Mexicans, which has been an ally of ours. You do not know who is coming
through. So I think it is foolhardy to say that.
And then I want to almost in our private meetings make a motion to
make the former Speaker Newt Gingrich an honorary member of the 30-
Something Group because of the kind of analysis that he continues to
provide us and what we are in agreement on.
{time} 2250
Now, let's look at what the former Speaker has said about staying the
course. And this isn't just Iraq; I think this is also dealing with
homeland security. The former Speaker says in the Wall Street Journal
on September 7.
Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman would yield for just a moment.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I think we have got to underscore that the former
Speaker was the leader when he served here of the Republican Party.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. He was the man who set the basic principles of what
the Republican revolution was going to look like.
So on September 7, 2006, in the Wall Street Journal, he says: ``Just
consider the following: Osama bin Laden is still at large, Afghanistan
is still insecure, Iraq is still violent, North Korea and Iran are
still building nuclear weapons and missiles, terrorist recruiting is
still occurring in the U.S., Canada, Great Britain, and across the
planet.''
Is that the kind of leadership we want in the United States of
America to secure our country? I don't think so. Given that foreign
policy and domestically, given what Ms. Wasserman Schultz has said
about our borders and our homeland security and our ports, that is not
the kind of leadership we need.
And the final point I would like to make before I yield to my friend
from Florida is that we have tended to take the long view. I think we
have made some difficult decisions, our party, in the last 10 or 15
years that have been difficult, balancing the budget in 1993, leading
the lower interest rates, creating 20 million new jobs, welfare reform.
All of those things were very difficult decisions politically, but over
the long haul history is judging them to be good decisions on behalf of
the country. And to look and see what Secretary Rumsfeld said when he
kept getting questioned about what we were going to do in post-war
Iraq, Madam Speaker, I think says it all. And this is from a story in
The Washington Post on Saturday, Madam Speaker.
It says: ``Long before the United States invaded Iraq in 2003,
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld forbade military strategists to
develop plans for securing a post-war Iraq, the retiring commander of
the Army Transportation Corps said. Brigadier General Mark Scheid told
the Newport News Daily Press in an interview published yesterday that
Rumsfeld had said ``he would fire the next person,'' who talked about
the need for a post-war plan.
He would fire the next person that brought it up, Madam Speaker. This
isn't saying, I don't want to hear the other side. This isn't saying,
we aren't talking about that yet. This isn't saying, we are having a
meeting about something else right now, maybe we will bring that up
later. Or, we are having a meeting about that tomorrow. The Secretary
was saying he would fire the next person who even brought up designing
a post-war Iraq plan.
Now, that is the kind of leadership we are getting. And I think in
September of 2006 as we see where this country is, where former Speaker
Gingrich is saying where the country is and all the lack of successes
that we have had, to see the kind of leadership coming out of the
Pentagon and the Secretary saying we will fire you if you even bring it
up one more time about a post-war plan in Iraq, I think speaks volumes
about what is going on.
I yield to my friend.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I have reviewed that particular interview with General
Scheid. He goes on to say: ``Just as we were getting into Afghanistan,
Rumsfeld came and told us to get ready for Iraq.'' Scheid remembers
thinking, My gosh, we're in the middle of Afghanistan. How can we
possibly be doing two at one time? How could we pull this off? It's
just going to be too much. The Secretary of Defense continued to push
us that everything we write in our plan has to be with the idea that
we're going to go in, we're going to take out the regime, and then
we're going to leave.
You know, to think that the President has not demanded from the
Secretary of Defense his resignation I think is a statement of
arrogance, a statement that the American people are being insulted. And
I hear this frequently: If this were done in the private sector, how
long would the head or a CEO of an agency the size of the Department of
Defense be allowed to continue? I mean, we all know that answer. That
is a rhetorical question.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Delahunt, I have got to tell you, over August
break I had numerous conversations with business folks, Republicans,
card-carrying, who would talk to me about the fact that if they were
running the business and Rumsfeld was their assistant or vice whatever,
he wouldn't be around. He would have been gone years ago.
Mr. DELAHUNT. And yet on Sunday, on Sunday we have the Vice President
of the United States being interviewed by Tim Russert, and this is what
he has to say. Talk about an incapacity to embrace reality and to be
honest with the American people. Knowing all that he knows, in
retrospect, he concludes that the war in Iraq was the right thing to
do; and if we had to do it over again, we would do exactly the same.
Russert poses the question: Exactly the same thing? ``Yes, sir.''
I mean, we're refereeing a civil war. Reports are coming out of the
Pentagon that western Iraq, we are about to lose western Iraq. This is
the intelligence that is provided by a highly respected Marine colonel,
and yet this
[[Page H6418]]
crowd, these men have the hubris to stand before the American people
and say that they would do the same thing again despite what we have
learned, despite reports from the Senate Intelligence Committee that
unequivocally say that they were wrong when they talked about al Qaeda
and links with Saddam Hussein. And even as recently as August 21, the
President infers that there was a relationship between Saddam Hussein
and Zarqawi. And the Senate Intelligence Committee in a bipartisan way
says that is not the case. Do they think that we are stupid?
But the tragedy is that our colleagues on the other side in the
Republican majority refuse to ask those questions, refuse to insist
that they come before the congressional committees and answer to these
charges made by military personnel, by colonels, by generals, by boots
on the ground that have been there and fought there for their country.
That is arrogance.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Delahunt, can we yield to Mr. Ryan to give
the Web site information.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. 30-Something Working Group www.housedemocrats.gov/
30-something, housedemocrats.gov/30-something. And all the charts that
you have seen tonight, Madam Speaker, are available on the Web site. I
yield back to my good friend from Florida (Mr. Meek).
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, I include for the Record the Wall
Street Journal article previously referred to:
[From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 7, 2006]
Bush and Lincoln
(By Newt Gingrich)
Washington.--Five years have passed since the horrific
attack on our American homeland, and, still, there is one
serious, undeniable fact we have yet to confront: We are,
today, not where we wanted to be and nowhere near where we
need to be.
In April of 1861, in response to the firing on Fort Sumter,
President Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to serve for
90 days. Lincoln had greatly underestimated the challenge of
preserving the Union. No one imagined that what would become
the Civil War would last four years and take the lives
620,000 Americans.
By the summer of 1862, with thousands of Americans already
dead or wounded and the hopes of a quick resolution to the
war all but abandoned, three political factions had emerged.
There were those who thought the war was too hard and would
have accepted defeat by negotiating the end of the United
States by allowing the South to secede. Second were those who
urged staying the course by muddling through with a cautious
military policy and a desire to be ``moderate and
reasonable'' about Southern property rights, including
slavery.
We see these first two factions today. The Kerry-Gore-
Pelosi-Lamont bloc declares the war too hard, the world too
dangerous. They try to find some explainable way to avoid
reality while advocating return to ``normalcy,'' and
promoting a policy of weakness and withdrawal abroad.
Most government officials constitute the second wing, which
argues the system is doing the best it can and that we have
to ``stay the course''--no matter how unproductive. But,
after being exposed in the failed response to Hurricane
Katrina, it will become increasingly difficult for this wing
to keep explaining the continuing failures of the system.
Just consider the following: Osama bin Laden is still at
large. Afghanistan is still insecure. Iraq is still violent.
North Korea and Iran are still building nuclear weapons and
missiles. Terrorist recruiting is still occurring in the
U.S., Canada, Great Britain and across the planet.
By late summer, 1862, Lincoln agonizingly concluded that a
third faction had the right strategy for victory. This
group's strategy demanded reorganizing everything as needed,
intensifying the war, and bringing the full might of the
industrial North to bear until the war was won.
The first and greatest lesson of the last five years
parallels what Lincoln came to understand. The dangers are
greater, the enemy is more determined, and victory will be
substantially harder than we had expected in the early days
after the initial attack. Despite how painful it would prove
to be, Lincoln chose the road to victory. President Bush
today finds himself in precisely the same dilemma Lincoln
faced 144 years ago. With American survival at stake, he also
must choose. His strategies are not wrong, but they are
failing. And they are failing for three reasons.
(1) They do not define the scale of the emerging World War
III, between the West and the forces of militant Islam, and
so they do not outline how difficult the challenge is and how
big the effort will have to be. (2) They do not define
victory in this larger war as our goal, and so the energy,
resources and intensity needed to win cannot be mobilized.
(3) They do not establish clear metrics of achievement and
then replace leaders, bureaucrats and bureaucracies as needed
to achieve those goals.
To be sure, Mr. Bush understands that we cannot ignore our
enemies; they are real. He knows that an enemy who believes
in religiously sanctioned suicide-bombing is an enemy who,
with a nuclear or biological weapon, is a mortal threat to
our survival as a free country. The analysis Mr. Bush offers
the nation--before the Joint Session on Sept. 20, 2001, in
his 2002 State of the Union, in his 2005 Second Inaugural--is
consistently correct. On each occasion, he outlines the
threat, the moral nature of the conflict and the absolute
requirement for victory.
Unfortunately, the great bureaucracies Mr. Bush presides
over (but does not run) have either not read his speeches or
do not believe in his analysis. The result has been a
national security performance gap that we must confront if we
are to succeed in winning this rising World War III.
We have to be honest about how big this problem is and then
design new, bolder and more profound strategies to secure
American national security in a very dangerous 21st century.
Unless we, like Lincoln, think anew, we cannot set the nation
on a course for victory. Here are some initial steps:
First, the president should address a Joint Session of
Congress to explain to the country the urgency of the threat
of losing millions of people in one or more cities if our
enemies find a way to deliver weapons of mass murder to
American soil. He should further communicate the scale of the
anti-American coalition, the clarity of their desire to
destroy America, and the requirement that we defeat them. He
should then make clear to the world that a determined
American people whose very civilization is at stake will
undertake the measures needed to prevail over our enemies.
While desiring the widest possible support, we will not
compromise our self-defense in order to please our critics.
Then he should announce an aggressively honest review of
what has not worked in the first five years of the war. Based
upon the findings he should initiate a sweeping
transformation of the White House's national security
apparatus. The current hopelessly slow and inefficient
interagency system should be replaced by a new metrics-based
and ruthlessly disciplined integrated system of
accountability, with clear timetables and clear
responsibilities.
The president should insist upon creating new aggressive
entrepreneurial national security systems that replace
(rather than reform) the current failing bureaucracies. For
example, the Agency for International Development has been a
disaster in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The president should
issue new regulations where possible and propose new
legislation where necessary. The old systems cannot be
allowed to continue to fail without consequence. Those within
the bureaucracies who cannot follow the president's
directives should be compelled to leave.
Following this initiative, the president should propose a
dramatic and deep overhaul of homeland security grounded in
metrics-based performance to create a system capable of
meeting the seriousness of the threat. The leaders of the new
national security and homeland security organizations should
be asked what they need to win this emerging World War III,
and then the budget should be developed. We need a war
budget, but we currently have an OMB-driven, pseudo-war
budget. The goal of victory, ultimately, will lead to a
dramatically larger budget, which will lead to a serious
national debate. We can win this argument, but we first have
to make it.
Congress should immediately pass the legislation sent by
the president yesterday to meet the requirements of the
Supreme Court's Hamdan decision. More broadly, it should pass
an act that recognizes that we are entering World War III and
serves notice that the U.S. will use all its resources to
defeat our enemies--not accommodate, understand or negotiate
with them, but defeat them.
Because the threat of losing millions of Americans is real,
Congress should hold blunt, no-holds-barred oversight
hearings on what is and is not working. Laws should be
changed to shift from bureaucratic to entrepreneurial
implementation throughout the national security and homeland
security elements of government.
Beyond our shores, we must commit to defeating the enemies
of freedom in Iraq, starting with doubling the size of the
Iraqi military and police forces. We should put Iran, Syria
and Saudi Arabia on notice that any help going to the enemies
of the Iraqi people will be considered hostile acts by the
U.S. In southern Lebanon, the U.S. should insist on disarming
Hezbollah, emphasizing it as the first direct defeat of Syria
and Iran--thus restoring American prestige in the region
while undermining the influence of the Syrian and Iranian
dictatorships.
Further, we should make clear our goal of replacing the
repressive dictatorships in North Korea, Iran and Syria,
whose aim is to do great harm to the American people and our
allies. Our first steps should be the kind of sustained
aggressive strategy of replacement which Ronald Reagan
directed brilliantly in Poland, and ultimately led to the
collapse of the Soviet empire.
The result of this effort would be borders that are
controlled, ports that are secure and an enemy that
understands the cost of going up against the full might of
the U.S. No enemy can stand against a determined American
people. But first we must commit to victory. These steps are
the first on a long
[[Page H6419]]
and difficult road to victory, but are necessary to win the
future.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. And, Mr. Delahunt, as we close here, I believe
Ms. Wasserman Schultz is going to claim that next hour so we will
continue. Democrats, we call for the redeployment, a number of Members
and some Republicans, redeployment of U.S. troops. Due to the fact that
Mr. Ryan talked so eloquently about section 1, Article I of the
Constitution that says we have legislative powers, but it seems the
Republican majority forgets about that. Thus far, the new Pentagon
report shows that the situation is worse in Iraq. Every day we go now,
the attacks are up to 700 attacks per week, 792 attacks. We also have
U.S. troops and taxpayers continuing to pay a high price for the war in
Iraq. We are approaching 2,700 U.S. troops dead, 20,000 wounded, and
the U.S. taxpayers are paying more than $300 billion on the war in Iraq
alone.
That picture next to you, Mr. Delahunt, is very revealing, these two
quote/unquote leaders are embracing that the U.S. has questions with.
____________________