[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 113 (Wednesday, September 13, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H6520-H6526]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE 30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gohmert). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor coming before the
House once again, and I must say that I am excited about being here
tonight. It is another great day in this great country of ours.
And as you know, the 30-something Working Group, we come to the floor
to share with the American people, not just Democrats but Republicans,
Independents, those that are thinking about voting, those that have
been turned off by political processes who are thinking about being
engaged in the political process once again.
To those Americans who are not registered to vote, I would encourage
them to register to vote. They can still vote in the upcoming November
elections because there is a lot being said on the floor, Mr. Speaker,
and we talked last night, the 30-something Working Group. We took 2
hours last night talking about the initiatives that we have with our
Real Security Plan, talking about the memory and the sacrifice of those
that gave their lives on 9/11 and those that are still living with the
effects of 9/11, whether it be losing a family member or a first
responder or someone that worked in the World Trade Center or was
around the plane going down in Pennsylvania or the Pentagon here in
Washington, D.C., those that are still living through it.
Today we had a resolution on the floor, Mr. Speaker, that dealt with
addressing the memory of those that lost their lives on 9/11 and things
that we have to do. The Republican majority found it fit to kind of put
in a resolution about some things that they thought that they
accomplished as it relates to making America safer. Some of that I join
with them on as an American and as a Member of Congress, but a lot of
it has not been achieved.
{time} 2200
We have the 9/11 Commission Report that came out that said that we
have to not only inspect 100 percent of cargo containers that are on
ships and 100 percent of those cargo containers that go in the bellies
of airplanes that are flying throughout the United States of America,
it is still not accomplished today. We still have a dismal amount of
Border Patrol officers to protect American borders. Democrats, we have
asked for 2,000 Border Patrol officers; the President's budget request
to this Congress was only 215 or 216 Border Patrol officers.
Now, the Republican majority can come to the floor night after night,
day after day, do 5-minute speeches, 1-minute speeches, or take a
special order and talk a good game. But I used to be a football player,
Mr. Speaker, I played for Florida A&M Rattlers. I was an outside
linebacker. And before the game, you would read all about what the
other team is saying and all of the talking and taunting. And then you
have folks that tailgate before the game, and the bus would roll in and
they would talk about what they are going to do to us, and then the
coach would talk about how better the other team is. But it really
doesn't count until that whistle blows and that kickoff takes place and
that you have an opportunity to get out there and hit somebody. And
when you hit somebody and when you run the ball down the field and you
end up winning the game, all of that talk was for naught.
But what is unfortunate about this situation, even though I use that
analogy, Mr. Speaker, this is not a game, this is for real. This is
flesh and blood. This is flesh and blood. And the bottom line is, is
that one can come to the floor and talk about, well, you know,
Democrats and this, that, and the other, and they are holding us back.
What are we holding the Republican majority back from, Mr. Speaker?
That is what I want to know. That is the prevailing question here.
The bottom line, the Republicans in this House have been in this
control for double digit years. So who is holding them back? Now, let's
talk a little bit about control. I want to make sure that every Member
understands what control and majority means.
The majority means that any amendment, any bill, any appropriations
that you want funded will be funded because you are in the majority.
You have more numbers than the Democrats do at this particular time in
the House.
Why are the American people saying that they want change? Why are the
American people saying that they want to move in a new direction? They
want to move in a new direction because they want accountability. They
want oversight. They want Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution
to be adhered to. They want to make sure that their vote counts here in
the U.S. House of Representatives. Right now, it is just a lot of talk.
And I can tell you, as a Member of the House and someone that studies
what happens here on this floor and what does not happen here on this
[[Page H6521]]
floor, I feel it is my obligation not as a Member of Congress but as an
American to be able to come to this floor and say that it is just not
happening.
We can talk about the facts, and like we do every night we talk about
the facts. We have the vote number, down to the vote number when we
start talking about border protection. No one can come on this floor in
the Republican majority side and say that we have done an outstanding
job as it relates to protecting our borders, period, dot. They cannot
because they have not done it, Mr. Speaker, and they know it.
So I guess spending the time of 9/11, the fifth anniversary, coming
to the floor, having control of a resolution dealing with the issue on
9/11, you can put anything that you want to put in it because you have
the majority. It doesn't necessarily mean that it is true. And if the
Americans want to move in a new direction, they will have an
opportunity. And as we start looking at this whole piece on a new
direction and real security, you go on HouseDemocrats.gov. I challenge
the Republican majority to go on HouseDemocrats.gov, I challenge the
Republicans to pick up the Democrats' bill here on this floor that
fully implements the 9/11 recommendations. I ask the Republicans to do
that, because it was a bipartisan commission that is respected by this
whole country, had a Republican chair and a Democratic vice chair, and
had former Members of Congress, members of the Intelligence Committee,
the National Security Director come before them and the President of
these United States come before them, 9/11 survivors come before them,
clandestine organizations that we have within the Federal Government
come before them. We have a number of individuals that put forth
testimony, frontline first responders that came before them,
individuals in academia who have been looking at this issue of homeland
security come before them, and they put forth this document called the
9/11 Report, which was a book. Americans can go out to Barnes and Noble
or what have you and go out and buy it, go on Yahoo and buy it. It was
ready and accessible, and a number of Americans picked up and read it.
And in that book, in that text and body: Safety for America.
What do we do in a democracy when the Congress put forth in the
Commission to find out what we need to do? We try to implement at least
95 percent or 100 percent of it. But as I stand here today, Mr.
Speaker, very little of that has been implemented as it relates to real
security.
The Brits ended up intercepting a plot as relates to liquid
explosives. Just today, Mr. Speaker, I am the ranking member of the
Oversight Committee on Homeland Security, Management Integration and
Oversight, and I must say that that in that committee the Under
Secretary said, well, we are now starting to do tests as it relates to
liquid explosives, 5 years later, Mr. Speaker. Foot dragging process.
And we start talking about the whole issue of how do we get technology
involved and how do we get industry involved in helping us resolve
threats to the United States, 5 years later.
Do you know why the Department of Homeland Security is foot dragging
on this issue? It is the fact that they don't have Members of Congress
that are willing to call them out on the carpet and say that we are
willing t protect Americans now. We don't want to wait to be a Monday
morning quarterback. Mr. Ryan, we don't want to talk about, well, you
know, we could have, should have done it, and then we have another
commission, it may not be named 9/11, it may be 10/11 that will come
forth with a report saying that we found the Department of Homeland
Security didn't prioritize the issue on liquid explosives because they
felt that there were other threats that are out there.
Well, the bottom line is this: The oversight is not happening, and
this Republican Congress has rubber stamped everything that President
Bush has handed down and said, so shall it be written, so shall it be
done. Let's do it the way you originally wrote it; we are not going to
ask any questions, you are the President of the United States. Forget
about our legislative responsibilities, forget about oversight, and
forget about moving in a new direction.
The bottom line is this. The leader took this podium on this floor
here today down in the well and said, if you really want to honor those
individuals that have lost their lives on 9/11, if you want to honor
those first responders, if you want to honor every American that is
fighting abroad as it relates to Afghanistan and the war in Iraq, then
implement what the 9/11 Commission called for.
We have got American passengers, we have individuals, law-abiding
citizens taking off shoes, giving up hand sanitizer, gulping down water
before they get through security screening; meanwhile, containers
unchecked, unchecked, there can be 10,000 explosives in the container.
We would never know it because we haven't prioritized. We haven't said
that we are willing to implement what the 9/11 Commission called for. I
don't want to give the 9/11 Commission an opportunity to say, we told
the Congress to do it and they didn't do it. I wish they would say we
told the Republican majority to do it and they didn't do it.
So, one can get on the floor and say all they have to say, but the
facts are this. The fact is that they have not implemented the 9/11
Commission Report. They have not implemented making sure that we go
beyond 6 percent of containers that are going throughout the United
States of America on 18-wheelers. I used to be a State trooper. They
move throughout this country, in the heartland of this country, into
the ports of major cities, and they are unchecked. I don't want to be
able to say I told you so. I want to see it implemented.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I said last night, Mr. Ryan, I am done with asking
the Republican majority to do the right thing. They have had double
digit years to do it. They don't have the will nor the desire to do it.
But they do have the will to come to the floor, Mr. Ryan, and to try to
say, well, you know, we are doing all we can and the Democrats are
holding us back. How can we hold the Republican majority back from
securing America? That is not possible when you are in the minority.
The bottom line is, is that Republicans, Independents, Democrats,
those that are thinking about voting, those that have not voted in a
number of years will show up at the polls to put this country in a new
direction. If you allow this kind of landslide policy making, this K
Street Project policy making, pay-to-play, here on this floor, then we
are going to find ourselves in a dismal situation.
I don't have to say it. Republicans are saying it, Independents are
saying it, the media is saying it as you pick up the paper, as you turn
on the news. So, you know, it is not like this is a Democrat-Republican
issue. I will go ahead and give the benefit of the doubt, Mr. Speaker,
and say that there are some Republicans that see it the way that we see
it on this side of the aisle that we need to do better by the American
people. But, guess what, they are not in the majority; they are not in
the leadership of the American Congress. They are not the individuals
that move policy through this process. We have the will and the desire
to work in a bipartisan way if given the opportunity to make sure that
we honor our member and women that have served in the military, that
are now serving right now. There are men and women that have sand in
their teeth.
Mr. Ryan and I have been to Iraq, I have been to Afghanistan, I have
been in the Middle East talking to these leaders, I have been to
Central Command. I have been there in Qatar, and I have talked to these
individuals, and they are dedicated and they have the will and the
desire to follow up. But when we have a Secretary of Defense that is
saying that he is going to fire the next person that starts talking
about how do we move out of Iraq and how do we replace the force there
to be able to empower the Iraqi people, I have a problem with that. And
the only reason why Secretary Rumsfeld is not front and center in front
of the Armed Services Committee is the fact that Republicans have
control of this House; otherwise, there will be Article I, Section 1 of
the U.S. Constitution that is blood, sweat, and tears that are on that
Constitution right now that he will be front and center making a
statement like that. The Secretary of Defense of the United States of
America said, if one other person comes to him talking
[[Page H6522]]
about how are we going to have this transfer of power, how are we going
to draw down and redeploy U.S. troops, that they are going to be fired.
That is not a democracy, that is kingdom politics, Mr. Speaker. And I
will tell you this. The only people that can bring the kind of paradigm
shift that we need in America right now is the American people. We
can't count on the Republican Congress to do it. They have already
shown that they cannot do it.
The attacks on U.S. troops are well above 700 attacks a week and
climbing. Al Qaeda is sending more troops, more individuals to Iraq to
train to carry out terror throughout the globe. And the bottom line is,
the President said some sort of statement yesterday. Well, you know, if
we were to redeploy troops or we were to leave Iraq, then they will
follow us to the United States.
Well, you know something? We have this big department that is called
the Department of Homeland Security that is supposed to protect
Americans. And I can tell you this, under a Democratic controlled
Congress we have already said within the 100 hours that full
implementation of the 9/11 Commission Report will be implemented by
this House and the Senate. We have already said it and we will do it,
just like we balanced the budget without one Republican vote.
{time} 2215
Mr. Speaker, the facts are on this side of the aisle. The will and
the desire is on this side of the aisle. I am excited. I thank God that
He preserved life long enough for me to make it here tonight to be able
to share the sentiments on behalf of those that are on the National
Security Committee, on behalf of U.S. troops in Afghanistan right now
that are saying, ``We need help.'' On behalf of those veterans,
individuals who can't even walk straight right now, individuals that
are still going through reflection, or memorizing what they went
through in past conflicts. Those individuals in the PFWs, those
individuals that possess what this country is all about and allowed us
to salute one flag. On behalf of them, Mr. Speaker, I come tonight with
the truth, to say we stand up for those individuals and for those
Americans that prayed up our troops over the years: World War I, World
War II. You name it. Korea. You name it. Grenada. You name it. Somalia.
You name it. Gulf War I. You name it. We come to the floor on behalf of
those individuals, those individuals who are veterans right now that
have to wait twice a month for the veterans' assistance center to open,
for the VA clinic to open in their rural America area, for those
individuals that have to wait 4 months to be able to see an
ophthalmologist, who served our country. We come to the floor for them.
We come to the floor on behalf of those families that are praying for
their loved ones that are in harm's way right now and making sure that
we don't allow their sacrifice and their commitment to go to the side
because someone came to the floor of the House to say that, Oh, well,
yeah, we have al Qaeda and this, that and the other. We have to worry
about those Democrats over there.
You don't need to worry about us, Republican majority. You need to
worry about the American people and what they think and what they feel.
And when they show up on Tuesday, come this November, they will let you
know how they feel. They no longer want a rubber-stamp Congress. They
want a Congress that is going to legislate and oversight on behalf of
the American people, regardless of who they may be.
And so, Mr. Speaker, I am excited about being here tonight. I think I
have said that about three times. I think it is important that we
continue to come to the floor and give validation to those individuals
that need the representation, if they are in our districts or not. They
are Americans and they deserve it.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I appreciate the gentleman's passion and want to
thank you for inviting me to be down here with you again.
I think what you are trying to say is that this Congress, this
President, has really put us and the American people in a lose-lose
situation. Good Presidents and a good Congress do not put the American
people and their military operation in a lose-lose situation. And now
they have reverted back to just saying, Democrats don't care about
national security. Democrats are more in favor of protecting the
terrorists. Just name calling. It is like you are on the playground
again.
The thing that we have to look at is the record. The record does not
lie. And what the generals are telling the civilian side what to do and
the civilian side not listening, as you expressed earlier. But here is
what we are hearing from former generals who, once they get out, can
all of a sudden start speaking the truth. Like General Shinseki tried
to say to Rumsfeld, ``You've got to send in a few hundred thousand
troops.'' And Secretary Rumsfeld, Mr. Speaker, said, ``No, no, no.
Don't worry. We can do this on the cheap.'' Rumsfeld was wrong and
Shinseki all of a sudden kind of disappears. Look what is happening
now.
Lieutenant General Newbold: ``What we are living with now is the
consequences of successive policy failures.'' This man was the top
operations officer for the Joint Chiefs, commanding general for the
First Marine Division, Legion of Merit Navy and Marine Corps
commendation medal.
How about General Eaton: ``2\1/2\ more years of that leadership was
too long for my Nation, for my Army and for my family.''
These are generals.
How about General Riggs: ``They only need the military advice when it
satisfies their agenda.''
I think what we want to do, Mr. Speaker, is get out of the politics
and let's start solving problems. Seven hundred thousand people per
Congressal district vote for us to come down here and fix problems, not
to play politics with what is going on. And this has been all politics,
all the time, from this administration. It doesn't matter if what they
are saying is even remotely close to being based in reality. It doesn't
matter what the facts on the ground are. You can sit here and say, the
Democrats this and the Democrats that.
You're in charge of the House, the Senate and the White House. Don't
go blame the minority party for your failures. That is what has
happened here. I will be happy to yield.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Ryan.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. The debate coming out of D.C. and the old Potomac
two-step is, ``We'll blame the Democrats.'' What are you going to blame
the Democrats for? We have bills sitting in committee. No one has given
them even one hearing in a committee. We have got discharge petitions
sitting over here for veterans benefits and all kinds of other things.
They never see the light of day. We are the minority party. You can't
blame us. You can try, but you can't blame us. Take responsibility for
your actions. And if you solve problems, the American people would
return you back. But you haven't.
Just look. The failure to execute basic governmental programs. Look
at homeland security. Look at Katrina. Look at the war. You got Newt
Gingrich, the father of the Republican revolution in 1994, basically
saying, ``Vote the Republicans out.'' Here is what Speaker Gingrich
said in the Wall Street Journal just a couple of days ago. Just
consider the following, he says:
``Osama bin Laden is still at large. Afghanistan is still insecure.
Iraq is still violent. North Korea and Iran still building nuclear
weapons and missiles. Terrorist recruiting still occurring in the U.S.,
Canada, Great Britain and across the planet.''
This is not a Democrat. This is someone who cares about his country
and saying, ``We may even disagree on how to fix the problem, but can
we please admit that we have got some serious problems in 2006 in the
United States of America? We have a government that doesn't work
because it thinks the government is built on a concept of an economy
that was 1950. It doesn't work.'' This is from a few months ago, about
the Republican majority.
``They are seen by the country as being in charge of a government
that can't function.''
We don't need to make this up. We don't need to create this. This is
not fiction. This is about what is happening here. We come down here,
Mr. Speaker, because we want to start solving these problems. When we
are not included in the debate, you are basically saying half of the
country has no
[[Page H6523]]
solutions. Well, we have solutions. When we get in charge next year, we
are going to show the American people our ability to govern. We are not
trying to obstruct. We couldn't even obstruct if we wanted to. All we
are saying is, every single aspect of the neoconservative political
agenda has been implemented and it is not benefiting the American
people.
Look at your energy costs. Look at your health care costs. Look at
your tuition costs. Look at your tax burden. Look at the inefficiency
of government. Look at how your government responds to natural
disasters. Look how your government handles its foreign policy. Look at
the prewar plan. When you have a problem with your political system and
your leadership, when you have the Secretary of Defense. Just think
about this. There is a problem when the Secretary of Defense wants to
invade a country and doesn't want anyone around him talking about how
we are going to get out once the war is over. We have got the best
military machine the planet has ever seen. We knew we were going to
march right to Baghdad. We didn't know it was going to be as quick as
it was but we knew it would be quick. Certainly the Iraqis weren't
going to be able to stop us. And then the Secretary of Defense, used to
be called the Secretary of War, the same position. But the Secretary of
Defense tells everyone around him that we're not allowed to talk about
a postwar plan.
What? Mr. Speaker, that is crazy.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I have to come in at this point
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Come in.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. You are making a great point, but I just have to
come in at this point.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Supplement.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is over at the
Department of Defense, it is almost like having what they call a
501(c)(3), kind of a community group that goes out and does good on
behalf of the community. You go out and you pick board members to be on
your board of this 501(c)(3). Let's just say it is the Boys Club or the
Girls Club of America. You are the chairman of the board. You are
saying, ``I'm going to get everyone that says yes and agrees with me. I
don't want anyone to disagree with me.'' We do know for any great
organization that you need individuals that are going to question your
original thoughts.
What we have now in America, in the Department of Defense and in this
government, this Federal Government of ours, is a ``yes'' board of
directors. The U.S. Congress, the Republican majority, is a ``yes''
board. They are a rubber-stamp board. They do anything and everything
the President of the United States says, does, or whoever his advisers
may say we should do.
But what is unfortunate is the fact that we are the superpower of the
world and we are the United States of America. This is not the Boys and
Girls Club. This is not One-Two-Three 501(c)(3), we want to do good for
you. This is national security. This is protecting women and children.
This is making sure that our troops that have gone in past conflicts,
that their memory is not stepped upon. This is making sure that
individuals have health care. This is making sure that small businesses
are able to provide health care. This is making sure that we balance
the budget. This is not a 501(c)(3). This is the government of the
United States of America.
And when you have the Secretary of Defense saying, ``If anyone comes
to me that doesn't believe in what I believe in, you can get out of
here. If you want to talk about an exit strategy or redeployment of
troops in Iraq, you can't be around me. You're fired.'' And all you
hear is cricket sounds from the Republican majority. Quiet. No one is
saying anything. No one is doing anything. No one called a hearing. No
one called the Secretary to the United States Congress to say, ``Excuse
me, Mr. Secretary. Wait a minute. I heard you give speeches saying that
whatever the men and women need and the commanders need on the ground
in Iraq, that you're here to hear their call. You want to hear from
them.''
The President of these United States, the Commander in Chief, said,
``Whatever our commanders tell us on the ground or over at the
Pentagon, we're here to take on their recommendations.''
But, Mr. Speaker, things have gotten so bold now, because no one is
here to question kingdom politics here in Washington, D.C. So shall it
be written, so shall it be done politics from the White House and from
the Pentagon. And so that the Secretary of Defense feels so confident
that he can publicly say, anyone who has anything to say about
redeployment of troops in the Pentagon, they are gone. That is not a
democracy. That is a rubber-stamp democracy.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I want to share a couple of other of these quotes
that support what you are saying. Here is from General Batiste:
``Rumsfeld and his team turned what should have been a deliberate
victory in Iraq into a prolonged challenge.''
General Zinni: ``We are paying the price for the lack of credible
planning or the lack of a plan. Ten years' worth of planning were
thrown away.''
How about General Swannack: ``I do not believe Secretary Rumsfeld is
the right person to fight that war based on his absolute failures in
managing the war against Saddam in Iraq.'' That was from the New York
Times in April. And on and on and on.
But here is the point I want to make before we yield to our other
good friend from Florida about just not listening and not even
accepting facts presented by nonpartisan people.
{time} 2230
The 9/11 Commission was a bipartisan group that said you need to
implement these. After months and months of study on what happened on
9/11, this is what you need to implement. And it has not been done.
And then the Senate Intelligence Committee comes out and says there
was no tie between Saddam and al Qaeda, and yet the administration goes
out and continues to perpetuate falsehoods. Excuse me, but, I mean,
come on. It was the Senate Intelligence Committee report, and the
Senate is controlled by Republicans. That was basically a Republican
report and a nonpartisan report, and yet they continue to just go on
and say things that just don't match with reality.
I yield to my friend from Florida.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Well, thank you, Mr. Ryan. It is wonderful to
be here again with both of you, as we take the floor each night to talk
to our colleagues and any Americans that might be within the sound of
our voices.
Last night, we had the opportunity to talk about and reflect upon
September 11 and its commemoration, and we had a commemoration of sorts
on the floor this evening, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Meek. I thought it was
really interesting that the majority, Republican majority, felt it
necessary to politicize what should have been a solemn and
commemorative event, and a solemn and commemorative resolution with
their ra-ra stuff on some of the most controversial legislation that
has come off this floor related to so-called national security.
And on Monday, when we were in our home communities, I was in south
Florida with our first responders in my community. And I told you both
last night that again and again all day on Monday people asked me,
well, Debbie, are we safer than we were 5 years ago? And, you know,
that was such an incredibly difficult question to field because you
want to tell them, yes, we are safer. We are elected officials, and the
public puts their trust in us, and it is our job to be able to
unequivocally say, yes, we are safer. But here is the rhetorical
questions I will ask you. Have we captured Osama bin Laden? Have we
smoked out the terrorists, as the President promised? Three years after
``mission accomplished,'' do we even know what the mission is? A year
after the last throes of the insurgency in Iraq, are we closer to the
date that our troops can come home? Does the President still want the
insurgents to ``bring it on?''
If you look at the point shortly after we toppled the Taliban in
Afghanistan, we have made one misstep after another after another. I
mean, repeatedly. I would be hard-pressed to think of a way in which
the aftermath of September 11 and the last 5 years could have been
handled worse than it has been. I mean, are we truly resting the sum
total of our national security on whether we take our shoes off when we
go through the magnetometer at the airport, or whether we check our
Coke at the door?
[[Page H6524]]
I mean, if you asked Americans, as we walked down a city block, what
they could put their arms around and tangibly identify as the national
security steps we have taken, that is what most people would name.
Basically, the war on terror is a junkyard of missed opportunities.
That is exactly what we have been doing since 9/11, squandering
opportunity. And last night, Mr. Meek, we talked about how unified and
patriotic the country felt and our citizens felt after 9/11. You never
had a less partisan environment or a more unified American environment
than the hours and days after 9/11, and weeks and months.
In that whole year following 9/11, people drove around and you had
American flags on either side of every car, and this President and this
Republican majority squandered those opportunities to really bring the
country together by adopting the bipartisan recommendations of the 9/11
Commission, which is why that commission was created, in spite of the
President's objections, who didn't want the 9/11 Commission to even
exist in the first place.
But then, finally, he really had to grudgingly agree he would be
supportive of it. And to this day, in 2006, September 13, 2006, we have
not fully implemented it. We have not even come close to implementing
their recommendations. Squandered and missed opportunities. It is just
disgusting.
So no, sadly, the answer I had to give my constituents was, well, we
are somewhat safer. We are safer in spots, but there are major, major
gaps. And it doesn't have to be that way, Mr. Meek. It really doesn't.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. If I may inject here, the last attack, the attack
prior to 9/11, was in 1993. This is a very patient group. Just because
we haven't been hit yet does not mean we are executing the plan
properly. And to just dismiss the 9/11 report and continue down the
road of ignoring what the experts are telling us from Iraq and from
everything else puts us in a certain amount of danger.
And you have the charts that we have shown night after night that are
on our Web site, housedemocrats.gov/30something, night in and night
out, about the ports and the amount of ships coming in and cargo that
are coming in that are not checked, Mr. Meek. You guys are in Florida,
we have Lake Erie in Ohio. I mean, this country is surrounded by cargo
coming in and out of our ports, for us not to check it all.
And then, when you think about what we are spending in Iraq, $2
billion a week, $8 billion a month, and what we could do with that
money on addressing the issue of our ports, on our homeland security,
on our first responders, on making sure everyone has the proper radios
and the proper equipment to coordinate these kind of things; what we
could do with technology at the borders, at our airports, the retinal
scans, and all kinds of things that could spring up and even have some
economic stimulus.
What economic stimulus are we getting out of Iraq right now? Nothing.
Nothing. It is like putting money and just flushing it. And so I think
it is time, and I yield to my friend, but I think it is time that we
start straightening this out
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I will just jump in on one thing. As you watch
what they are doing unfold, because, again, we always remind people we
don't have any control over this process right now. Hopefully, after
November 7, we will be given that opportunity, because the American
people, we know, want a new direction. But, Mr. Meek, I don't know if
you had a chance to read one of our papers in south Florida, the Sun
Sentinel, the other day, but one of the Members in our delegation on
the Republican side actually said the war in Iraq is over. He was
actually quoted as saying the war in Iraq is over and that we won the
war, and that now we are fighting a faceless enemy. Which is absolutely
true, we are fighting a faceless enemy.
But I was flying here and reading the newspaper, reading that
article, and wondering what planet this person was on and whether there
an alternate universe he was observing. Because anyone that we know, no
matter what their party affiliation, clearly recognizes that we are at
war. This is called the war in Iraq. This is major, major conflict,
where more than 2,600 troops have been killed. Ask the families of
those troops whether they think the war is over. How about the wounded,
the more than 20,000 wounded, whether they think the war is over and we
won.
If that is the reality that our Republican colleagues are operating
under, no wonder they are taking us in the direction that we are going
in.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And let us look at the colossal failure that has
been made here. We have now, because of the decimation in Iraq and the
inability of a post-war plan that Rumsfeld didn't want anyone to talk
about, and not propping up some government there to combat Iran, now
you have Iran as the major player in this region. And they are talking
about nuclear weapons, they are funding terrorists through the back
door in Iraq through Hamas. Through all of the terrorist organizations
in the Middle East, Iran is the one stoking this fire.
We have put ourselves in such a position of weakness. Now, we have
troops there and troops in Afghanistan, too, so what if something else
happens? And I think it is interesting, and our ranking member on the
Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton, has been talking about this for
a long time, and it is difficult to even fathom this, but one-half of
all Army units, deployed and nondeployed, Active and Reserve, one-half
of all Army units received the lowest readiness rating any fully formed
unit can receive, with a decline in levels that haven't been seen since
Vietnam.
So our army is not ready. Not only are we in a quagmire in Iraq, we
have problems in Afghanistan, the poppy crop is growing like gang
busters, it is a major parts of their underground economy that is going
to the terrorists, now our army is not meeting the readiness
capabilities in case something else happens.
And we are in a position of weakness with China because we are
borrowing billions of dollars from them, so how do you negotiate with
all these people from a position of weakness? You can't. It has been
America that has always balanced the budgets so we didn't have to
borrow money from people; very selective in our foreign policy; making
sure we had friends and allies. All down the tubes in one presidency.
Yield to my friend.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, I don't give the President total
credit for all of this. He couldn't do it by himself. You have to have
a rubber stamp Congress to give you full power, full power to be able
to take the country down the track it has gone down. And the bottom
line is that a Republican majority, from the leadership on down to the
newly elected member of the Republican conference, has to take credit
for giving the President the kind of power that he has right now.
We are fighting wars abroad for ``democracy,'' when here at home we
don't celebrate that very democracy that so many people speak of. We
have individuals that are on their third and fourth deployment. I am on
the Armed Services Committee, so I get the reports. I get the letters
from my constituents saying my husband, my wife, my mother, my dad, my
niece, my uncle, my next-door neighbor is on his way back to Iraq
again. Because we went alone. We didn't go with a true coalition.
So I think it would be hard, if I was a part of the Republican
majority, to try to muster up some talking points for the floor right
now; to be able to say, well, okay, some of this stuff is not
believable, so let's try to attack some members of the Democratic
caucus. Let's try to muster up and embellish a ``record'' on possibly
being weak on terrorism or being weak on national security. That's
where the Republican majority is now. Mr. Speaker, they are gasping for
political air right now.
But you know what is so important about this issue and this
discussion about national security is that it is supposed to be
nonpolitical. And, unfortunately, it is. And that is because the
majority hasn't allowed bipartisanship in this House for so many years,
and so they can hang it around their neck and say it is our war. It is
our failure as it relates to national security and border security.
Don't act like it is a crisis right now. You allowed it to happen under
your watch. You have been the rubber stamp Congress.
Now, Mr. Ryan and Ms. Wasserman Schultz, let me just tell you what
the rubber stamp Congress has accomplished borrowing $1.05 trillion
from
[[Page H6525]]
foreign nations in 4 years. In more than 224 years of this country's
history, with 42 presidents. $1.01 trillion they were able to borrow in
4 years, and this Republican Congress and the President has allowed
that to happen.
These are the countries here that own a part of the American apple
pie: Japan, China, the U.K., the Caribbean, Taiwan, Germany, and OPEC
nations. You know, this whole oil thing that we will talk about in a
minute. Korea and Canada. They all have their hands in the pockets of
the U.S. taxpayers, not because of the U.S. taxpayers but because of
the Republican majority's out-of-control spending.
Oil companies? Oh, wow. At this time in history, when they unearth
what happened under this Republican majority and this Presidency, they
will see these record breaking profits. There was a meeting in the
White House, I have the article to prove it, and I talk about it all
time. It was a special meeting that took place in the White House, and
the Vice President's aides and all met. And then the policymakers came
here to the Congress, to the rubber stamp Congress.
Now, let me set this up here, because we believe in the 30-something
Working Group, in third-party validators. Washington Post, Wednesday,
November 16, 2005, White House document shows that executives from big
oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's Energy Task Force in
2001, something long expected by environmentalists but denied as
recently as last week by the White House. Last week, industry officials
testified before Congress. Document obtained by the Post on November
2005 shows that officials from Exxon Mobil, Phillips, Shell Oil
Companies, and BP of America met in the White House complex with Cheney
aides to develop a national energy policy, parts of which became law,
and parts of which are still being debated in Congress.
{time} 2245
That was 2001, Mr. Speaker. Look what happened:
2002, $34 billion, record-breaking profits; 2003, $53 billion; 2004,
$84 billion; 2005, $113 billion in profits for oil companies.
Meanwhile, average Americans are spending through the nose and trying
to make it to work and to drop their kids off.
Look what happened here. This is what happened under the Republican
majority and a rubber stamp Congress. So shall it be written and so
shall it be done.
E-85, we talk about alternative fuels, flex vehicles. Every magazine
I open talks about flex vehicles. Here is the bottom line. The
Republican Congress have allowed these oil companies to be able to do
anything they want to do when they want to do it. This is an actual
pump here at an Exxon-Mobil station. It says you cannot use your Mobil
credit card to buy E-85. Meanwhile, we can continue to feed off the
Saudi Arabian Middle East, what got us in this thing in the first place
policies. You can use your oil card there. You can buy a bag of chips,
you can buy a carton cigarettes, but E-85 that is produced in the
Midwest versus the Middle East, you cannot use your Mobil credit card
for that.
And on retirement packages, and I don't know very much about Lee
Raymond, but the bottom line is he is a retired executive from Exxon-
Mobil with a $398 million retirement package and a $2 million tax
break. This is what happens with a Republican majority.
Again, the Republican majority rubber stamp, don't worry about
balancing the budget. Democrats, we tried to balance the budget. We
have done it before. We have tried to do it under this Republican
majority. Not one Republican vote to balance the budget on rollcall
vote 87, March 17, 2005.
Ranking Member Spratt and the Budget Committee put it forth again.
Failed. Not one Republican vote on rollcall vote 91 in 2004. Their will
and desire is not there. The American people deserve balance.
Minimum wage. Yes, there was some bill that came up before we left
for the break to talk about minimum wage, a bill that the Republican
majority knew that the Senate would not take up and would never make it
to the President's desk. But because we were hammering them on it, they
said let's pass this. They added all kinds of stuff. It is called the
Potomac two-step.
This chart, the bottom line is these are not minimum wage increases,
these are increases for Members of Congress. This is our pay. This is
what we make. Oh, look at them. Since 1997 there hasn't been an
increase in the minimum wage, and you not a minimum wage worker right
now, and I am not talking to the Members of Congress, I am talking to
the American people, the bottom line is if the minimum wage goes up,
and that means if you are a salaried worker, then your wages will go
up. But the bottom line is that it is a fact that the Republican
Congress has said not over our dead body. We are going to get our
increase, but we are not going to give the American people a minimum
wage increase. It goes on and on and on.
I am going to close with this, the Prime Minister of Iraq and the
President of Iran. Mr. Delahunt brought this picture out last night. I
don't care whichever way you cut, $300 billion of spending, over 2,000
troops, thousands and thousands of American troops injured, here in
Washington, D.C. ``stay the course,'' no plan.
The Secretary of Defense says if you talk about or say anything about
redeployment of troops or withdrawing from Iraq, you are fired. No
question from the Congress, no response from the Congress. The
Secretary of Defense is not called to the Hill immediately. The
Republican Congress, what are they saying? They are saying nothing, Mr.
Speaker. So accountability is not there. They are embracing and guess
what, this is a la the U.S. taxpayer through the Republican majority
because of a lack of diplomacy and a lack of plan and going to a war of
choice versus after Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and giving those
troops in Afghanistan the support they need.
So Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Ryan, I rest my case. The bottom line
is that was not a message for Democrats or Republicans. It was not a
message for Independents or the Green Party or other party
affiliations. That is a message for Americans. The bottom line is
whatever you may feel, if you are a member of the Republican Executive
Committee or you have always voted Republican or you always voted
Independent, you have to have issues with what the facts are.
I yield to Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. I want to pick up on the litany of
issues you were going through because we need to zero in on how we make
ourselves safer because the other side is going to spend a lot of time
and they are spending a lot of time claiming they are the party of
national security and they are the ones that need to be entrusted to
keep us safe.
The last time I checked, that is who was in charge of keeping us
safe, and they are not doing such a hot job. Mr. Ryan talked about how
we like to use third party validators here. We absolutely do. I am
going to use a third-party validator of Governor Kean, former Governor
Kean of New Jersey who co-chaired the bipartisan 9/11 Commission and
Lee Hamilton, a former well-respected Democratic Congressman who was
the other co-chair of the 9/11 Commission. Here is what they said on
Monday, September 11, 2006. ``As we mark the fifth anniversary of the
terrorist attacks, Americans ask: Are we safer? Two years ago, the 9/11
Commission found that our government failed in its duty to protect us.
The commission, which the two of us led, made 41 recommendations to
ensure that this Nation does everything possible to protect its people.
``Many of our recommendations, including those to reorganize the
intelligence community, were written into law. Yet no law is self-
executing. Implementation is often the harder step.''
We know that implementation is the job of the Congress. The 9/11
Commission couldn't recommend things into thin air and suddenly they
would happen. They have to be adopted into law and funded.
They continued, ``We issued a report card on our recommendations in
December. It included 10 Cs, 12 Ds, and 4 Fs. What we argued then,''
and this was September 11, 2006, 2 days ago, ``is still true now:
Americans are safer, but we are not yet safe.
``So what do we need to do?'' This is their words, not ours.
``First, homeland security dollars must be allocated wisely. Right
now,
[[Page H6526]]
those funds are spread around like revenue-sharing projects.'' We are
basically using the opportunity to spend money on homeland security for
turkeys, we used to call them in Florida. We call them earmarks here.
That means little itty-bitty projects, and every Member knows that
there are potential security targets in their own district, but we
don't nitpick homeland security. You don't spread the money around so
thinly so you never make truly one area or region or community truly
safe.
They said that until Congress passes a law to allocate funding on the
basis of risk and vulnerabilities, scarce dollars will continue to be
squandered.
``Second, States and localities need to have emergency response plans
and practice them regularly. Hurricane Katrina taught us a lesson that
we should have learned from September 11: From the moment disaster
strikes, all first responders need to know what to do and who is in
charge.''
Do they know that? No.
``Third, we called on Congress to give first responders a slice of
the broadcast spectrum ideal for emergency communications.'' That won't
happen until 2009. What in God's name are we waiting for? 2009? What
happened to the interoperability in communications that was so
essential that was the major problem on 9/11?
I don't have time to go through all of the recommendations, Mr. Meek,
because homeland security is so woefully lacking and the congressional
leadership here has done, I can't even use that word, congressional
leadership has done such a poor job of implementing their
recommendations and making us safer that it is laughable. It is
ridiculous. It is outrageous for them to suggest that they are the
party of national security and safety. I could go on and on.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to share as we end here from
the Newt Gingrich commentary from the Wall Street Journal where he
talks about some of this stuff, about trying to figure out what the
solutions are by figuring or understanding what the problems are.
Then he talks about, and this is his advice to George Bush, ``Then he
should announce an honest review of what has not worked in the first 5
years of the war.'' That is what we have been saying. Let's find out
what has not been working. Based on the findings, he should initiate a
sweeping transformation of the White House national security apparatus.
Good idea.
The current hopelessly slow and inefficient interagency system should
be replaced by a new metrics-based and ruthlessly disciplined
integrated system of accountability. That is what we want to do.
Accountability. Let's sit down and have hearings and figure this out.
The House of Representatives has a role to play in this oversight. The
President should insist upon creating a new, aggressive,
entrepreneurial national security system. It is time to do this.
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.
This is about reforming the institution of government. The former
Speaker understands it. The Democratic Party understands it, and the
only people who seem not to get it are the people who serve in this
administration and the high levels of this Congress. I hope it changes.
All of the charts that we are using tonight are available on this
website, www.House Democrats.gov/30Something. It has been an enjoyable
evening once again.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, I want to say that Ms. Wasserman
Schultz is going to get an opportunity to go through her homeland
security piece when we are on the floor again.
I want to encourage members to go on HouseDemocrats.gov and get a
copy of the real security plan that we have here. We even have it in
Spanish. Also energizing America is on there, and also an innovation
agenda that has a lot of CEOs and leaders in the education field. They
say they endorse our plan.
With that, we thank the Democratic leadership for allowing us to have
this time. It is an honor to address the House once again.
____________________