[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.

                          ____________________