[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 112 (Tuesday, September 12, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H6419-H6425]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 12, 2006 (House)]
[Page H6419-H6425]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:cr12se06-139]                         



                              {time}  2300
 
                       30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2005, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) 
is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, it is a privilege and an honor 
to join my 30-Something colleagues for this next hour to talk about the 
new direction for America that Democrats want to take this country in, 
and what we would implement were we to have the opportunity to take the 
majority after November 7 of this year.
  We have been talking about the Republican leadership's security 
failures and the fact that while they talk real nice about how they are 
committed to homeland security and improving our security measures 
nationally, that is all it appears to be amounting to, is talk.
  Let us walk through, my colleagues, what the reality is in terms of 
where Republicans have taken us on security. Let us look at the Iraq 
war. Right now, under the Bush administration's policy of ``stay the 
course,'' our Republican colleagues have essentially been continuing to 
be a rubber stamp for a ``stay the course'' policy, even though that 
has strained our military, cost nearly 2,700 United States lives, and 
diverted attention and resources away from the real war on terror.
  There has been article after article, Madam Speaker, that has come 
out that has clearly indicated, and the American people know this, that 
the war on terror is not going on in Iraq. It is going on in pockets 
throughout the world where, if we actually devoted our resources and 
our intelligence capabilities to the true war on terror and shored up 
our borders and made sure they were not as porous as they are, then we 
would be able to feel more secure and I wouldn't get questions like I 
got yesterday all day when I participated in 9/11 commemoration events: 
Are we really safer?
  People are really concerned. They are concerned in their hearts, Mr. 
Delahunt. They want to feel safer. They want the answer to that 
question to be yes, but they know that the answer is not yes. Our 
friends on the other side of the aisle are rolling out the same tired 
baloney, Mr. Ryan, about how they are going to be the ones that can be 
counted on for homeland security and protecting Americans in this hour 
of strife. Well, that is not the reality when we look at the facts.
  Look at the Iraq war. We could not be in worse shape. Look at the war 
on terrorism and there isn't anyone that could examine the war on 
terrorism and say that we are winning right now; that we have been 
successful in our fight. We have not captured or killed Osama bin 
Laden. Terror groups and the number of global terror attacks are on the 
rise. Five years after 9/11 we have still failed to capture or kill bin 
Laden. And in a survey of America's top national security experts, 84 
percent of them said that America is not winning the war on terror.
  What we are calling for, Mr. Delahunt, is to finish the job in 
Afghanistan, which we should never have abandoned in the first place. 
The Taliban insurgency is on the rise. It is getting worse and worse 
there. Mr. Delahunt reviewed that in the last hour. Democrats would 
double the size of our special forces, increase our human intelligence 
capabilities, secure all loose nuclear materials by 2010, and implement 
our real security agenda, which those are all components of.
  When it comes to homeland security, we would implement the 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, unlike the Bush administration 
and this Republican Congress who have gotten D and F grades by the 9/11 
Commission. We would implement their recommendations and fund them.
  This is a really interesting fact, Mr. Meek. If Democratic 
amendments, like that which we detailed in the last hour had been 
adopted, there would actually be 6,600 more Border Patrol agents, 
14,000 more detention beds, and 2,700 more immigration enforcement 
agents along our borders than now exists.
  We only check 6 percent of the containers that come through our 
ports. Most air cargo that goes in the belly of our passenger airplanes 
is still not being screened, and there is still not a unified terror 
watch list for screening airline passengers. What we are doing is 
having people remove their shoes before they go through a metal 
detector and now we make them throw away their Coke.
  If we are resting the sum total of our national security on those two 
things, then no wonder people ask the question like I got all day 
yesterday: Are we really safer? I wasn't able to answer that question 
yesterday the way I really wanted to be able to, Mr. Delahunt and Mr. 
Meek.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I think what is important here, Ms. Wasserman 
Schultz, is the fact that we know we have a real security plan. Members 
can log on to housedemocrats.gov and get this plan. It is there, Madam 
Speaker. Folks can't say that we don't have a plan or that we are not 
thinking about what we should be doing as it relates to terrorism. That 
is not the case.
  We have two wars going on, one is against the war on terror and one 
is the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq is a miserable failure, as we look 
at it from a governance standpoint of this Congress and the leadership 
in the White House doing what they need to do.
  Our troops and the commanders on the ground are doing the best they 
can with what they have to work with. But the bottom line is we didn't 
do diplomatically, and when I say we, the Republican majority and the 
White House, in making sure we had a true coalition before we went into 
Iraq. It is a coalition we paid for. The American taxpayer paid for 
whatever 25 troops that the country sent there, or the second largest 
force in Iraq, Madam Speaker, that is still there in the war in Iraq 
are contractors, that the U.S. taxpayers, where you get that $300 
billion from, Mr. Delahunt.
  So as far as governance, it is not happening from our side. The war 
that Mr. Gingrich referenced is the war that had the connection with al 
Qaeda and the Taliban government. That was the response to 9/11.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. But we left too early.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. But we left, and now we have commanders on the 
ground in Afghanistan saying, we are losing ground now. We need help 
now.
  But guess what, Madam Speaker? War number two, that has nothing to do 
with the war on terror but now has become a war on terror, or we are 
trying to connect it, and the President spent almost more time trying 
to connect the reason why we went into Iran with 9/11. And that is not 
the case, and I think everybody knows it. The Taliban wasn't in Iraq. 
They weren't there, Madam Speaker. They have operatives there now as it 
relates to al-Qaeda. That is after we invaded.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. They are training.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. They are training there and becoming stronger.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. And they are going back.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. And they are going back and training. I am going 
to yield to you, Mr. Delahunt, but I know it is hard because this stuff 
is so much in the face of the American people, but we want to make sure 
that we break it down. But let me just make one more point, please. Let 
me just try to get this out and then I will happily yield, Mr. 
Delahunt.

[[Page H6420]]

  The fact that we have two wars going on, and the Democratic leader of 
the Armed Services Committee that Mr. Ryan and I serve on, Mr. Ike 
Skelton, he came to the floor, and I have his statement right here. It 
was a 5-minute speech he gave last week, and I heard him give this 
speech last week on the two wars. Right here on this floor, Mr. 
Delahunt, we were standing right over there, I said, Mr. Skelton, can I 
have a copy of what you shared with the American people and the Members 
of this House? He gave it to me.
  These are the three pages right here. Talks about the two wars, Madam 
Speaker. It talks about a war on terrorism, which we had Osama bin 
Laden pinned down, and then we went into this other war in Iraq that 
took troops away from Afghanistan, that stretched U.S. forces to the 
point to where they are now. It is kind of hard to keep up with the 
whole recruiting issue. We are almost giving away a Chevy truck for 
people to join the military right now. And it is very unfortunate 
because the U.S. taxpayers are being drained.
  Now, when I said that it comes down to the failure, I am talking 
about the failure of the oversight and governance on this side of the 
ball, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Ryan, and Ms. Wasserman Schultz. We must do a 
better job. Now, how do we do that job?
  Mr. Ryan speaks all the time about article one, section one of the 
U.S. Constitution. It is right here. It says the Congress, not the 
executive branch, has legislative powers. That means the House and the 
Senate. We oversee legislation. But that is not happening right now, 
and so that is the reason why we have the breakdown in government that 
we have right now, Madam Speaker. This is very simple.
  We, the Democrats, are willing to put America in a new direction. 
Now, let us just talk about this new direction for a minute. It is not 
rocket science. It is just doing what the Constitution says. It is 
doing what the American people federalized us to do, is to represent 
them and not to be a rubber stamp for the White House.

                              {time}  2310

  We have borrowed more money than we have ever borrowed from foreign 
nations in the history of this country: $1.05 trillion in 4 years 
versus $1.10 trillion in 224 years. That is where it has gotten us.
  Oil companies, record-breaking profits as far as the eye can see. The 
next numbers are going to come in even higher. There was a meeting in 
the White House in 2002, and look at how the profits have just taken 
off in the billions for U.S. oil companies. That's a lack of oversight 
by the Congress allowing the White House to have their way and to make 
sure that oil companies get what they want.
  Here are the countries that own a part, a big part of the American 
apple pie. Japan comes in at a whopping $682.8 billion, along with 
other countries. This is what happens when Article I, Section 1 of the 
U.S. Constitution is not adhered to. This is not Republican and 
majority stuff. This is not anything when it comes down to Democrats 
versus Republicans. This comes down to if you are willing to suit up 
and put on a tie or a St. John's and you come onto the floor and 
represent the American people. He is all of our President. Goodness 
gracious, I am an American. President Bush is my President, period, 
dot. The election is over. This is not about an election; this is about 
governance, and it is not happening right now.
  One thing that this Republican Congress does well, that is giving 
themselves pay raises. That is something that they do well. In 1998, a 
$3,100 pay raise; zero to the American people as it relates to the 
minimum wage. It goes on and on all of the way to 2006. We have said on 
the Democratic side it is not going to happen because we are going to 
stand up on behalf of the American people.
  Yes, there was a bill on the floor and we have talked about 
increasing the minimum wage. There is a lot of trickery in the bill, 
and it is not going to pass Congress, and it is not going to the 
President's desk.
  I just want to say, I started with Article I, Section 1, which Mr. 
Ryan talks about all of the time. It has nothing to do with being 
Democrat or Republican. It comes down to if you are willing to be in 
the majority and say we are willing to legislate on behalf of the 
American people.
  I have gone through a litany of things that have gone wrong because 
we haven't had balance in the three branches of government working in 
the way that they should. If you are an Independent or Republican or a 
Democrat or a Green Party or a young person, 17\1/2\ or going to be 18 
by election day or whatever the case may be this November, you have to 
be concerned about the direction that the country is going into. We are 
saying on our side of the ball, the Democratic side of the ball, that 
we have the will and the desire to lead in the direction that we need 
to be led. We won't let people down, and we won't let it go out so far 
that it becomes too late.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. We won't find ourselves in the same position that 
Chairman Hyde and Congressman Kirk now discover with their letter of 
last week asking the President to change the strategy when it comes to 
Afghanistan.
  It is 5 years after 9/11, and they both said United States efforts in 
Afghanistan are failing. That is what the Republicans are saying 5 
years after 9/11.
  Now we are going to have a visit once more from presumably the 
President of Afghanistan and we are going to hear the same words and 
the same rhetoric that we have heard, but we know what the reality is, 
and that is that the safe harbor and the genesis of where the attacks 
were planned and fomented and those individuals who attacked the United 
States train in Afghanistan, that our enemy there, the Taliban, are 
coming back.
  We won't let that happen because we will be asking the questions all 
along. If it requires one hearing every week on Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran 
and what is happening, we will do it. As Mr. Meek said, we will roll up 
our sleeves and get the job done because I think if anyone looks at 
this picture and reads the reports, the American people deserve some 
answers because the President of Iran and the Prime Minister of Iraq 
when asked at a joint press conference following their talks today 
about allegations that Iran was interfering in Iraq, the Prime Minister 
of Iraq said there is no obstacle in the way of implementing agreements 
between Iran and Iraq.
  And the President of Iran responded by saying we consider Iraq's 
progress, independence and territorial integrity as our own. He also 
said that Iran hoped the United States will leave Iraq soon.
  This is the President of Iran. He goes on to say that the triple 
strength and bilateral relationship Iran and Iraq as two brotherly 
neighbors will stand by each other and unwanted guests, and that's the 
U.S. Coalition, will leave the region, he said. The Prime Minister of 
Iraq described the talks as very constructive and called Iran a very 
important country, a good friend, and a brother.
  Can somebody tell me what is happening? Are we seeing the emergence 
of an alliance that presumably would be detrimental to the interest of 
the United States?
  What does the President say about this particular photo opportunity? 
Do you know, Mr. Meek or Ms. Wasserman Schultz? What is the position of 
the administration? Maybe the Prime Minister of Iraq can serve as our 
interlocutor with Iran on their uranium enrichment program because we 
are not talking to the Iranians. We don't talk to them and they don't 
talk to us because we sided with Saddam Hussein in that war that lasted 
from 1980 to 1988.
  Do you recognize this gentleman? That's Saddam Hussein? And you know 
who is shaking hands with him? That is Secretary Rumsfeld. That picture 
was taken in the early 1980s because Donald Rumsfeld, the current 
Secretary of Defense, he was the special envoy from the Reagan-Bush 
administration to Saddam Hussein.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. A picture speaks a thousand words.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. But now we have a new picture. We have a picture of the 
President of Iran and the Prime Minister of Iraq. What have we done? 
Can anybody answer the question?

                              {time}  2320

  Mr. DELAHUNT. We know this, those questions will never get asked as 
long as the Republican Party is the majority party in Congress.

[[Page H6421]]

  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Delahunt, I would like to talk about what 
we haven't done, and a little bit about what we have done. I can tell 
you last week, this is truly unbelievable.
  I mean, I think that there would be unanimous agreement in this room, 
no matter what party you represent, that we have a couple of issues 
that are pressing in this country. I can't imagine anybody would 
disagree with that, whether it is the 46 million people that don't have 
access to health care, whether it is the fact that gas prices are 
hovering at or near or over $3 a gallon, whether it is the fact that we 
haven't raised the minimum wage in 9 years. You know, there is a 
laundry list of problems.
  Yet, last week, we spent our time, we spent 2 days here, Wednesday 
and Thursday. During that time, if you remember what did we do. We 
named some post offices, but we always name post offices, that is a 
ceremonial thing that we do as parts of our regular routines and 
rituals here at the high school we adopted some resolutions, expressed 
the House sentiment.
  But that is what we usually do Tuesday, the first day we are here and 
sometimes extending into Wednesday. Wednesday and Thursday is when we 
get into the meat and substance of why we are here, we are addressing 
the Nation's problems.
  Last week, we addressed the critical problem that I know I am stopped 
in the supermarket every day, the prevention of horse slaughtering. 
That is the only bill that we passed of any substance last week. We 
passed the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act. I can tell you that 
I voted for it, because I believe that we should prevent the slaughter 
of horses.
  But, when it comes to what should be at the top of the national 
agenda, I don't know. Somehow that doesn't come up in my town hall 
meetings. I can tell you that our priorities for last week included 
implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendations, raising the minimum 
wage, lowering prescription drug costs for seniors, increasing Pell 
grants for people who want to pursue higher education for students, 
rolling back the subsidies for big oil, which have been implemented by 
the Republican leadership in Congress, and their rubber stamped 
colleagues; restoring the PAYGO rules so that we aren't continuing with 
out-of-control spiraling deficits, so that we can make sure that we 
only spend what we take in, and comprehensive immigration reform.
  That was on our agenda last week, and the Republican agenda was 
making sure that we prevent the slaughter of horses. I don't know, I 
think after November 7, I think most Americans are hopeful that we will 
move in a new direction. That when they get out of bed in the morning, 
they will not have to worry about whether there is a plan to make sure 
that it doesn't cost them more than $50 to fill up their gas tank, that 
the agenda that is addressed by the Congress of the United States 
doesn't include whether or not children will be reciting ``under God'' 
in the pledge.
  I mean, most moms, with a young man or woman fighting in the war in 
Iraq, they are not worrying about whether their little ones are saying 
``under God'' in the pledge. They are worrying about whether their baby 
is going to come back to them.
  The father of four, before he leaves the house in the morning, do you 
think he is worried about whether or not we burn the flag that day 
somewhere in America, as objectionable as flag burning is, or do you 
think he is more likely to worry about whether he is going to be able 
to afford to fill up his gas tank with than $50 coming out of his 
wallet. I mean, where are their priorities? How is that? How are those 
things the top of their agenda?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I think whether you are talking about foreign 
policy, what's going on in the war, or what you stated their agenda was 
the last week, which has been pretty much the same for the past couple 
of years, just a bunch of stuff that really hasn't worked, and you 
could just look around to see the facts of the matter, but there is a 
general sense by this Congress, and I think this administration, of we 
don't have to fix these problems. They are somehow just going to fix 
themselves.
  I found it very interesting, one of the bills I am most excited about 
when we get back in is Representative Tanner's bill and Representative 
Cardoza's bill that says we are going to basically audit the 
government. We are going to find out whether there is fat, where there 
is wasted money, where there are programs that aren't working cut them 
and squeeze them and put that money into stuff that is working. But 
that takes initiative, as Mr. Meek has said, it is about rolling up 
your sleeves and going to work and doing the hard work.
  But I found it very interesting, as I was going through former 
Speaker Gingrich's basic proposals in the Wall Street Journal, I am 
sorry, and going through here, he makes a lot of comparisons to the 
Civil War. It is very well written and very insightful.

  I want to just share with the House, Madam Speaker, a couple of 
things that Mr. Gingrich has said, which I think is the kind of 
attitude that he wanted to bring in 1994, and I think the kind of 
attitude that we want to bring in, and we will bring in when we take 
back the House of Representatives next year. He says, as he is going 
through the war, some suggestions for the President. He talks about 
several initiatives.
  One he said, then, he, the President, should announce an aggressively 
honest review of what has not worked in the first 5 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.
  That is what the Democrats want to do. Let us provide some oversight 
to all this nonsense that has been going on, and then we have to listen 
time and time again, new show after new show, about how everything is 
going okay, we need to stay the course, and we have the former Speaker 
telling us, no, it is about an aggressive honest review of what has not 
worked.
  There are numerous examples of that, and it is about time that the 
body that was created by Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution, 
provides the proper oversight. We are not talking about what's going on 
in local Rotary Club project. We are not talking about a local Kiwanis 
Club project to go create a river walk in a downtown. We are talking 
about almost 3,000 American soldiers being killed. We are talking about 
20,000 of our soldiers being injured.
  We are talking about thousands and thousands of Iraqis, many of them 
very innocent people, being killed, because we haven't figured out how 
we are going to win this war, and we have a Secretary of Defense that 
says he will fire the next person who asks for an exit strategy, or a 
post war plan. That is not leadership. I don't care what party you 
belong to.
  This isn't about Democrats and Republicans. This is about fixing a 
major problem that will cripple the American economy, bust our budgets 
for the next generation.
  Again, Mr. Gingrich says, because the threat of losing of millions of 
Americans lives is real, Congress should hold blunt no-holds barred 
oversight hearings on what is and is not working. Lives should be 
changed to shift from bureaucratic to entrepreneurial implementation 
throughout the national security and homeland security elements of 
government. That is exactly what Representative Tanner's bill will do. 
That is exactly what Representative Cardoza's bill will do. Let us 
throw it all out on the table. Let us hold oversight hearings. Let us 
audit this government that is not working. This government was meant to 
work in an industrial society, and it is operating like it is 1950, 
which it would be fine if it was 1950, but it is 2006.
  Everything has changed except for our national security offices and 
our homeland security offices. We created a 20th century bureaucracy 
with the Department of Homeland Security to battle a 21st century 
problem.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I just want to say it is outstanding what you 
pointed out, but I really do like what the Rotary and Kiwanis Clubs do 
in my local area. I just want you to know that. We have a very strong 
Rotary in my area, Opelika Rotary, doing a very outstanding job.

[[Page H6422]]

  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Are you a member?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Yes, I am. I spoke at their dinner.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Pay your dues?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I am an honorary Rotarian.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Which means you don't have to pay your dues.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Moving right along.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. When I get back to my district, I am going to 
become a member of the Rotary Club, because I do have a pin.
  Let me just say very quickly that this whole issue of the homeland 
security, and what we do and what they haven't done, when I say they, I 
am saying the Republican majority, as you know I am a member of the 
Homeland Security Committee. Last week we had a press conference.

                              {time}  2330

  We talked about our Real Security Plan, and we talked about the fact 
that Republican majority has shown that they are not ready to put forth 
this plan.
  What is this plan? This plan embodies 100 percent of the 
recommendations that the 9/11 Commission called for. Wow. The 
government spent a lot of money and put together a bipartisan 
commission. They have hearings, they go throughout the country, they go 
to New York, they have hearings here in Washington, D.C., have former 
Members of Congress, have the National Security Advisor to the 
President come before them, have the President of these United States 
come before them, have Members of Congress and other security experts, 
CIA personnel, you name it, other clandestine organizations within the 
Federal Government. Some hearings are secure, some hearings are public. 
They put forth their report and we say, well, let's see. We will do 
this and we won't do that.
  When you talk about national security, you can't skimp on the butter. 
You can't say, well, I am willing to wasteful spend as it relates to an 
unorganized response to Hurricane Katrina, or I am willing to send 
$300-plus billion to Iraq with very little oversight. But when it comes 
down to the 9/11 Commission report, that is where the proof is in the 
pudding.

  I am pretty sure every Member of Congress sent some sort of press 
release out talking about 9/11. Some Members went on further to justify 
the reason why things aren't the way they are supposed to be. Some went 
further and talked about how secure America is. Meanwhile, back at the 
ranch, the professionals are not saying here in in Washington that we 
have done our job, we, the Republican majority.
  I want to point a few things out. I am going to do the ``Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz'' here for a minute. Democrats are calling to make 
sure we go in a new direction as relates to homeland security. That is 
very simple. What does this new direction call for? This new direction 
calls for the immediate implementation of all the 9/11 recommendations. 
That is not partisan, that is security, Mr. Ryan.
  What else does it call for? It calls for 100 percent container 
screening of not only cargo containers that are on ships, but also 
cargo that is going into the belly of the plane. Ms. Wasserman Schultz 
talked about that in the last hour.
  We are taking our shoes off, hand your hand sanitizer over, you 
better drink that water before you go through the security area. What 
are you doing? Just before I got on the plane when I went to New York 
to be there on 9/11, I was getting on, and you know how they check you 
the secondary check before you go on the plane? ``Oh, you have some 
chapstick here. You can't have this.'' ``I am sorry. Take it, please.'' 
Meanwhile, looking out the window, I am looking at the containers going 
into the back of the plane going into Washington, D.C. I couldn't help 
but notice that.
  What else are we calling for? We want to provide first responders 
with the training, equipment and technology they need, Ms. Wasserman 
Schultz, what they asked for, what the 9/11 Commission asked for, what 
Members of Congress asked for. But, still, bills to implement this are 
not able to make it to the floor because it is pushed back by the 
Republican majority.
  Let's talk about what Democrats have done to lead on border security. 
The 9/11 Act called for 2000 new Border Patrol agents. I talked in the 
last hour about how we would add some 6,000-odd border protection 
officers in the amendments and attempts we made to try to increase 
that. We this year in 2006 called for 2,000 more Border Patrol 
officers, yet the President's budget only called for 210 new officers.
  It goes back to what you were saying, Ms. Wasserman Schultz. The 
Republican majority is big on the talk, in the stump speech and having 
the press conference with security, homeland security, all this kind of 
stuff. But when it comes down to the printed word, when it comes down 
to the budget that is handed out from the White House and when it comes 
down to what this Republican majority does, it is 2,000, from what the 
911 commission called for, and what we called for as House Democrats, 
versus the President's proposal, and you can look it up on line, that 
only asks for 210 agents.
  Democrats fought for the funding on almost five different occasions. 
Again for the record, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, H.R. 1268, a motion to 
recommit, and 2,000, vote number 160, and that happened on 5/5/05. Also 
you look at House bill 2360 was blocked, it was an Obey amendment, vote 
number 174. That was on 5/17/05. It failed, 223 to 185 on a partisan 
vote. H.R. 1817, a motion to recommit, 2005, again vote number 188, 
again failed on partisan lines.
  You start talking about on border security and closing the gaps. On 
nine separate occasions over the last 5 years, Democrats put forth 
motions here on this floor, because that is the only thing we can do. 
Being in the minority, we are not able to bring the bills to the floor, 
because the majority is blocking those bills from getting out of 
committee. And they are noted right here, and I am not going to go 
through that at this particular time, but all of this is on line, 
HouseDemocrats.gov, if anyone wants to go on and get this information.
  Also when you start talking about aviation security, Democrats 
offered a motion to require air cargo to be screened within 3 years. 
The motion was rejected by Republicans, again 2005, vote number 188, 5/
18/05.
  Democrats have spoken repeatedly on the issue of transit security, 
making sure that we authorize including a $2.8 billion initiative to 
improve transit security and a $1 billion initiative to improve rail 
security. Substitute amendment defeated again.
  So when you start look looking at the Record and what the Record says 
versus what is said here on the floor by the Republican majority and 
the rubber stamp majority, I wish the rubber stamp Republican majority 
would stop fighting us and start saying to the President, guess what, 
we no longer want to rubber stamp everything that you send here. I just 
wish the Republican majority would just leader up and say hey, Mr. 
President.
  So you start reading the paper, could someone get me a newspaper, 
please, because I want to just have it as a prop, because as Americans 
start reading the paper, they are reading about how Republican Members 
of the House and the Senate, the President flies into town, they get on 
the plane and leave town. Some even get in their car and go. ``I was on 
the other side of my district.''
  Well, let me tell you something, if the President of the United 
States is in my district, I think I would know. I think it would be 
some sort of news flash or some sort of e-mail that would come to me 
and say, you know, the President is coming in your district today, will 
be in an elementary school. Maybe you want to be there. He is the 
leader of the free world. Maybe you want to be there.
  The reason why they are taking flights while the President is coming 
in the reason why they are finding something else to do while the 
President is in their town is the fact that they don't want to be 
caught in the same situation with the President of the United States 
because they have not stood up to the President and said no, you can't 
put us in a financial situation as far as the eye can see as it relates 
to deficits and foreign countries running the world.
  You can't pick up the paper today not talking about a Republican 
running from the President of the United

[[Page H6423]]

States and don't want to be around when the President is around, or 
explaining why they are not there. That is some excuse.
  I hope I never get to the situation where I have the President of the 
United States coming into my district and I have to explain that I am 
somewhere else while the President is there.
  And the bottom line is this: People cannot face the music when it 
comes down to dealing with the policies of this administration, and 
better yet, you being in the position, there is only 535 of us, being 
in the position, as I come in for a landing, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, to 
be able to bring about change on behalf of the American people; to say 
this is not going to happen; to say I know you want to start a war in 
Iraq, but we still got this business over here with al Qaeda, who had 
everything to do with 9/11, who trained the individuals that carried 
out the 9/11 plot.
  But, meanwhile, while we are over there looking for Osama bin Laden, 
and we have him cornered, I got this unfinished business, the President 
said, over here in Iraq, because I got a problem with this leader over 
here. We got to take him out.
  But what about the after player? What is going to happen once you get 
to Baghdad? How are you going to bring stability? Who is going to be in 
the coalition? Calling up a couple of friends? I'll send 25 troops. 
I'll send 30 troops. You are not allowed to talk about it. Everything 
is secret.
  We have the then sitting Attorney General comes to the U.S. Congress 
over on the Senate side and tells the Senate, you are either with us or 
you are with the terrorists.

                              {time}  2340

  What kind of mess is that? So when it comes down to Article I, 
Section 1, and if the American people want the kind of representation 
they need, I am not talking as a Democrat, even though we were given an 
hour by the Democratic leader and we are all members of the Democratic 
Caucus. This is America. I guarantee you if the shoe was on the other 
foot, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I cannot help but imagine the kind of 
chaos and protest and finger pointing and them and they and all of the 
things that will be said. Some of the stuff will have to be stricken 
from the Record because the Republican side will be carrying on about 
the Democrats. But they cannot say it. They can't do it. They cannot 
even kind of paint a picture because they have been in charge of the 
whole thing since it started. So if the American people want a new 
direction, if the American people want accountability, if the American 
people want a House and a Senate that will carry out article I, section 
1 of the U.S. Constitution, and a lot of blood is on this constitution, 
but if they want that, then they will vote for a new direction in 
November.
  I am done, ladies and gentlemen, with begging the Republican majority 
to stand up on behalf of the American people because I am looking at 
what the oil companies are getting. They are getting theirs. I am 
looking at what these contractors are getting, either it be Katrina or 
the war in Iraq. They are getting theirs. I am looking at the issue of 
health care and all of the people that are running to the bank with all 
of the dollars and all of the influence and all of the access into this 
Congress. They are getting theirs. Meanwhile we are sitting around here 
talking about the minimum wage and we can't even get a doggone bill 
passed off this floor to be able to provide the American people with a 
minimum wage. Meanwhile we are giving ourselves a nice fat pay raise 
every year, $4,100 here, $3,100 there. Oh, we have the money for that. 
But we don't have the money for the people who are punching in and 
punching out every day.
  Madam Speaker, this has to come to an end and that is the reason why, 
Ms. Wasserman Schultz, that I believe there is a wind of change. It may 
not be outside the hall of this Chamber, but it is out there in 
America. It is in towns and it is in big cities and it is in emerging 
areas and it is in young people and older people that have decided in 
the past I am not going to participate, but I believe they are going to 
participate to save this country.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Speaking of the winds of change, you should 
have seen, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Meek, the wind behind our flight that our 
two colleagues that represent the State of New Hampshire had when they 
immediately left the room during the immigration hearings that we held. 
The Judiciary Committee had those immigration hearings across the 
country. I attended one of them in New Hampshire, and it was one of 
those road shows where, again, the Republicans tried to represent a 
whole lot of rhetoric about what their record really is on border 
security and homeland security and there is no reality to back it up. 
So we brought reality, Mr. Delahunt and Mr. Meehan and I, as members of 
the Judiciary Committee, went to that hearing, and we brought the 
record of our two colleagues from the State of New Hampshire and showed 
how ten different times while they were there in the room professing to 
their constituents that they were moderates on immigration reform and 
that they supported balance, we confronted their constituents with the 
reality of their record in a nice big lifesize form. And it was really 
interesting that the flight that they took out of the room following 
our putting that record up on the table and our asking, Mr. Meehan, Mr. 
Delahunt, and myself asking our good colleagues to say why they were 
saying one thing in the room at home when the reality of their record 
in Washington was completely different. And we had the facts, the 
third-party validator to back it up, which is the Congressional Record. 
And, of course, they had nothing to say other than, well, we supported 
the homeland security bill that had border security funding. And that 
is very nice but clearly that is inadequate. That is not doing the job. 
Otherwise our good friend Mr. Sensenbrenner wouldn't be pursuing 
legislation to make 11 million people felons and really not addressing 
the problem either. But the reality of their record confronts their 
rhetoric over and over again.
  Let us take a walk down memory lane, shall we? We have the rhetoric 
versus the reality on the war in Iraq and on the reality of their 
record on the War on Terror, which is different than the war in Iraq. 
Let us look at what was said way back before we actually went in and 
invaded Iraq. The rhetoric then was that Iraq had reconstituted its 
nuclear weapons program and posed an imminent threat to the United 
States. President Bush said in a speech in Cincinnati on October 8, 
2002, that ``America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. 
Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof, the 
smoking gun, that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. Saddam 
Hussein is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.''
  Well, the reality was that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons. 
``Saddam Hussein ended the nuclear weapons program in 1991 following 
the Gulf War. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to 
restart the program.'' And that was the Iraq Survey Group's final 
report, key findings, from October 6, 2004.
  How about the rhetoric on Iraq's link to al Qaeda? Because the 
justification for war, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Meek, as you know, has evolved 
over time. When they could no longer use that Saddam Hussein had 
weapons of mass destruction or was developing a nuclear weapon, when 
that didn't work anymore because there was no proof and there were 
reports that said there was no proof that that was the case, they moved 
on to trying to link Iraq to al Qaeda. And this was what Secretary Rice 
said on Larry King Live on CNN on February 5, 2003. She said, ``There 
is no question in my mind about the al Qaeda connection . . . And the 
most important thing for Americans and for the entire world to remember 
is that the potential marriage of weapons of mass destruction with 
terrorism is everyone's worst nightmare and you have, with Saddam 
Hussein, both a terrorist link and an insistence on having weapons of 
mass destruction which he could easily transfer at any time to one of 
his terrorist associations.'' That is what Secretary Rice said on 
February 5, 2003. Here was the reality: No evidence of operational 
relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. ``After a lengthy 
investigation, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the 
United States . . . reported finding

[[Page H6424]]

no evidence of a `collaborative operational relationship' between the 
two or an Iraqi role in attacking the United States.'' And that was the 
Washington Post report on October 25, 2004.
  And last week we had the United States Senate Intelligence Committee 
release a report that also concluded there was absolutely no connection 
between Saddam Hussein and Iraq and al Qaeda. In fact, on the contrary. 
Saddam Hussein had intense animosity for Osama bin Laden and there was 
absolutely no connection.
  Let us look at the prewar intelligence.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. If the gentlewoman would yield, so you are saying 
and it is fact that there is not anyone who believes that there was any 
connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda except for the two or 
three main leaders of this administration, period.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And our rubber stamp Republican colleagues on 
other side of the aisle.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I do not know if they believe it. They are going 
along with it.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Right. Apparently, the only one who is still 
insisting that there was a link is the President and the rubber stamp 
colleagues that he has managed to collect here in this Chamber.
  Here is more rhetoric: The Bush administration says that they didn't 
manipulate prewar intelligence. They argued that they did not try to 
fit the facts around what they intended to do in terms of their 
invasion in Iraq. So what they said, and this is Vice President Cheney 
now that I am quoting, he said, ``What is not legitimate, and what I 
will say again is dishonest and reprehensible, is the suggestion by 
some U.S. Senators that the President of the United States or any 
member of his administration purposely misled the American people on 
prewar intelligence.'' And Vice President Cheney said that on November 
21 of 2005.
  Here is the reality: Former State Department official questioned the 
Bush administration's use of prewar intelligence. Lawrence Wilkerson, 
who was the former Chief of Staff to President Bush's first Secretary 
of State, Colin Powell, here is what he said: ``After looking back at 
it, doing research over the last year or 2, and my time in the State 
Department, there is no doubt in my mind that certain members of the 
Bush administration did, in fact, politicize the intelligence.'' And he 
said that on CNN on March 17 of 2006.
  Now, you know, I was raised to tell the truth, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Meek. 
I was raised that you should back up commentary and back up commitment 
with action, and that seems to be totally absent. Our colleagues' 
ability on the other side of the aisle, particularly in the 
administration, seems completely absent when it comes to backing up 
words with action, when it comes to protecting our borders and homeland 
security commitment. And for some reason they insist, and, Mr. Meek, 
you have said this over and over, on the philosophy of maybe if we 
repeat it enough times, people will believe it. Maybe if we stamp our 
foot enough times, it will be true. Well, that does not work when my 
kids want to get me to do what they want, when they continually repeat 
what they want me to do over and over again and the answer is still no. 
And it does not work with the administration. It shouldn't work unless 
you are a Republican Member of Congress and you do whatever it is that 
the administration tells you to do.

                              {time}  2350

  Well, it is time for a new direction, and that is what we offer to 
the American people. We will actually back up our words with action.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I just want to reiterate this. The 9/11 Commission 
was not a partisan commission. That was not a Democratic commission. 
That was bipartisan, that was Lee Hamilton, one of the most 
distinguished Democratic Members of the United States Congress; the 
former Governor of New Jersey, a prominent Republican. A Republican in 
the Republican Party, very active and involved. That was a bipartisan 
commission said no evidence. No evidence. And then the new Senate 
Intelligence Committee, the Senate is controlled by Republicans, which 
means the Intelligence Committee is controlled by Republicans. This is 
a Republican committee, Mr. Meek. So it is just, again, third-party 
validators, two committees, one bipartisan independent committee, 
another committee controlled by the Republican Party, both saying no 
evidence.
  And then the Vice President gets on ``Meet the Press'' and says 
something different, and Secretary Rice is out talking about something 
that is just not even in the realm of reality. That is an insult to the 
American people. That is an insult to the 700,000 people in Ohio and 
the 1.4 million people that you represent in Florida. That is an 
insult. Don't insult the American people, Madam Speaker. Fix the 
problem. This should have been solved years ago figuring this stuff 
out, and it is kind of frustrating.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, let me say this in closing, because I 
know the hour is coming to a close. And I guess the only thing that I 
could possibly say here is that the facts are there. We have the real 
security plan that is out there. We have a great debate that will take 
place tomorrow, even though it is already written in stone on what the 
resolution would say.
  On this side, as we look at 9/11, reflection on 9/11, it is 
remembering those that lost their lives on 9/11. Those first 
responders, just including in those that lost their lives, but those 
first responders that survived 9/11, that live with 9/11 whether it be 
mentally, physically, spiritually, or emotionally, what they have to 
continually have to go through with family members and Americans and 
thanking those that participate.
  To go into this other area that the Republican majority, even after 
we have laid out all of this tonight about the 9/11 Commission report 
is still not fully implemented, we still have containers going into the 
belly of planes that are not being inspected, we only have 6 percent of 
containers that are going on the ships are inspected. We don't have 
interoperability, which you talked about earlier, Ms. Wasserman 
Schultz. It still hasn't happened. U.S. cities don't have it. They 
didn't have it in New Orleans, and we still have a problem responding 
to even natural disasters that we know are coming almost double digit 
days if not 7 or 5 days before it hits. We still have those issues.
  But on this side of the aisle, when you say the Democratic minority, 
we are saying we want to go with the memory of what took place, those 
individuals that died, those individuals that were hurt, to say we will 
never come back to this area again. The Republican majority, they want 
to address that, too, but at the same time want to push in some of this 
other stuff about how we are all secure and everything is better. That 
is not what this whole 9/11 resolution should be about. So I know that 
there will be a great debate on this floor, and I am going to go ahead 
and apologize to the American people because I know they are going to 
watch this debate and the are going to say, goodness, can't they be 
together on this, of all things? People have died on U.S. soil. Better 
yet, we have some that want to politicize it.
  So I am going to tell you right now, I am not going to come down 
here, Madam Speaker, tomorrow and debate the majority on what I know 
that some of it is not true. The same thing comes up, this is Ground 
Hog Day all over again with the Iraq resolution. Every time something 
happens in Iraq: let's honor our troops and those that are fallen. 
Let's do it then. Then it comes down to all of this: we commend the 
President, and it goes on and on with all of these high embellished 
accomplishments which is not true. I am not going to come down here and 
debate that. So I am just going to say right now that this Congressman 
from Florida will not take part in the whole.
  Yes, will I vote for the resolution honoring? Yes, I will. But I 
don't agree with the majority in using that opportunity to push a 
political agenda to say to the American people, see, the Congress 
agrees that we have done this, this, and that. That is not the issue.
  What happens in the budget, we talk about border security, what the 
President has called for and what we called for, 215 or 216 new Border 
Patrol agents; we call for 2,000. That is where the proof is in the 
pudding. It is not a resolution; it is the action that it has taken and 
the lack thereof.

[[Page H6425]]

  So, Mr. Ryan, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, it has been a pleasure being 
with you for 2 hours tonight. I am ready to go home.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Meek, as we close out and before we go to 
Mr. Ryan, I want to conclude by saying what a privilege it is to serve 
with the both of you and Mr. Delahunt and that the leader has given us 
this opportunity. I hope that 5 years from now when, after November 7th 
of this year, we are given an opportunity I am hopeful to run this 
institution, that on September 11th, 5 years hence, when we get asked 
the same question that I was asked yesterday, are we safer, that 
because we have implemented the 9/11 Commission recommendations and the 
other attempts that we have made to improve our homeland security, that 
we will be able to confidently answer that question, ``yes.''
  And I think the saddest thing and the way I would conclude my remarks 
tonight, the saddest thing I reflected upon yesterday was that there 
was so much opportunity that we had after 9/1\1/2\001. The country was 
so incredibly unified. Automobiles around this country on every highway 
had two American flags on either side of the windshield; you had 
universal unity. And this administration squandered that unity, and the 
road is littered with the missed opportunities. And it is just, really, 
sad isn't even a strong enough word.
  Mr. Ryan, I yield to you so you can talk about the Web site.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. WWW.HouseDemocrats.gov/30-Something. All of our 
charts and visual aids will be available on this Web site. 
HouseDemocrats.gov/30-Something. And you can e-mail us there, too. Any 
comments, please feel free. Members who are watching or listening right 
now can have an opportunity to e-mail us and ask us any kind of 
questions. Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. With that, Madam Speaker, I want to thank the 
Democratic leader for the opportunity to spend some time talking about 
the new direction for America. We yield back the balance of our time.

                          ____________________