[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 114 (Thursday, September 14, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H6637-H6644]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is recognized
for 60 minutes.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to come before the
House once again. As you know, the 30-Something Working Group has been
coming to the floor for 3\1/2\ years with great intensity in the last 2
years because a lot has been happening to America versus for America as
it relates to national policy in the area of health care, education,
economic development, helping small businesses and large businesses
provide health care insurance for their workers.
We can go from as large a company as General Motors having to cut
back on their employee workforce and having to make major cutbacks at
U.S. companies because of a lack of a policy dealing with health care.
You can go all of the way down to the small business that only has 5 or
6 employees that are encouraging their employees to get on Medicaid
because they can't afford to give them a package that is affordable for
those individuals to provide health care insurance for their families.
Those of us in the 30-Something Working Group, we don't come to the
floor to say Republicans, Democrats, Independents, what have you. We
come to the floor to give the American people the straight talk and
also Members of Congress straight talk about what they are not doing
for their constituents and Americans in general.
We are the leader of the free world as it relates to a democracy, but
our democracy and economy is suffering because of a lack of oversight,
a lack of adhering to Article I, section 1, of the U.S. Constitution
that says we are supposed to be the legislative body.
Mr. Speaker, I must say there are a number of Republican Members that
are coming down to the floor because I can tell you, if I was on the
majority side, I would be quite nervous right now. When the election is
50-some-odd days away and the American people are looking around and
saying, why don't we have the essentials, such as a health care policy?
[[Page H6638]]
Why do we have a number of red and blue States suing the Federal
Government over lack of funding for Leave No Child Behind?
Why do small businesses have to tell their employees to get on
Medicaid, a government program, when they could provide health care
insurance for their employees?
Why do we have veterans that are going to see a specialist at a VA
hospital and have to wait over 3 weeks, in some instances 2 months, to
see that specialist when they have a problem? Those individuals shed
blood and watched their friends and colleagues and comrades die. Those
individuals come here to the Washington Mall, right down the street
from this Capitol, to see the names and sometimes visualize the faces
of those individuals who lost their lives. These are individuals that
may not have legs or arms. Some are living the memory of what they went
through, but yet they have to stand in line.
If I was a part of the Republican majority, I would have an issue as
relates to the wrong direction that they have led this country.
{time} 2045
I wouldn't say the Republican majority has led the country in the
wrong direction. They have followed the President in a rubber stamp
atmosphere. They haven't stood up to the President and said Article I,
section 1 of the U.S. Constitution says we have to legislate, we have
to have oversight. So shall it be written, so shall it be done, by the
President of the United States, and now we find ourselves in a
situation that we have never been in the history of the United States
of America. This is not political rhetoric, this is the fact. This is a
fact.
Now we have a President that is running around here saying that he
wants to privatize Social Security, if he has a Congress that would
deliver it, a majority, in the next Congress. Now, I can tell you, the
President came in, he had privatization, he had 2 privatization
commissions that went out and tried to find information on how they can
privatize Social Security.
We spent a lot of time in the first half of the of the 109th Congress
last year trying out how we could please the President, the majority,
how we could please the President by privatizing Social Security that
would cut benefits for survivors, that would cut benefits for retirees
and cut benefits for individuals that became disabled at the time of
war.
The only winners in the privatization of Social Security would have
been Wall Street to the tune of $530 billion. I can speak boldly here
today. I don't have to look at notes, because I already know this.
Those of us on the 30-Something Working Group had well over 1,000
townhall meetings throughout the country with a coalition of Americans,
Democrats and Republicans to push back the President and the rubber
stamp Congress and not allowing seniors not to have that security that
they signed up for.
So I must say that this is not rhetoric, this is fact.
I just want to mention something, since I am joined here with my
friend, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the 30-Something
Working Group. We don't have to quote what Democrats have said about
this Republican majority. We can quote the past Speaker of this House
of Representatives, Newt Gingrich. There is not a day that you pick up
the paper and he says he doesn't understand what is going on in
Congress right now.
This is an individual, that led the quote, unquote, Republican
revolution that took place. They were supposed to balance the budget,
they were supposed to make sure that they have accountability, they
were to make sure that they have maximum oversight. None of that has
happened.
If I can just take, about, maybe 4 minutes, and just kind of go down
the line, because I know the previous speakers kind of painted this
picture that the Democrats are stopping something great from happening.
Well, I just want to break this down for the Members in case we don't
understand the majority and minority rule here. We can't bring a bill
to the floor, not that we don't have the desire to do so, it is because
we are in the minority. The bottom line we are in the minority,
especially in this partisan House of Representatives, because only the
majority can allow bipartisanship, true bipartisanship. We have already
said, if given the opportunity within a little bit over 50 days, that
we would work in a bipartisan way starting in January, tackling the
major issues.
Now, here are the facts, the only party in this House that has
balanced the U.S. budget, the Democratic majority at that time, without
one Republican vote. We balanced the budget. We were not borrowing from
foreign nations. If someone wants to ask a question, why don't we have
a true coalition in the war on Iraq? We don't we have the cooperation
that we need to be able to go after Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan
where poppy plants, I must say, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, is the main
funder of the al Qaeda network in Afghanistan.
Meanwhile, we have troops and coalition forces that are saying that
we need help, and we cannot respond. The reason why we cannot respond,
because we have this war of choice in Iraq. Over 2,000 Americans have
lost their lives, the second largest coalition there outside of,
without looking at notes, without looking at notes, the largest
coalition that is there outside of the U.S. forces are, what, U.S.
contractors, at the tune of over $300 billion that has already been
spent on the war, as far as I can see.
Republicans on the majority side are saying, the super majority of
Republicans, because I do believe a few of them have spoken out on the
fact that we need a plan in Iraq. The plan is, is what the President
has said, stay the course. If I was a CEO of a company, and we
overspend, mismanagement, scandals as it relates to U.S. stockholders,
I would say to the U.S. taxpayers in our case that have lost money,
report after report, attacks are up in Iraq.
We have the President of Iran and the Prime Minister of Iraq, look at
this right here. It is not a handshake, this is embracing. These two
countries were at war. I have been to Iraq.
I have gone in the parade stadium that Saddam Hussein had where the
helmets are embedded in the ground there as you march into that parade
stadium, stepping on the helmets of Iranian soldiers, that they
defeated Iran in past conflicts, and, look. This is the Prime Minister
of Iraq that came and spoke at that podium, here, that the U.S.
taxpayers paid for, democracy over 224 years, came there and spoke to
this U.S. Congress in a joint session.
I was sitting right there. I remember it vividly. He had very
disparaging comments to say as it relates to Israel, and he has gone on
to Iran. What happened at that meeting, Ms. Wasserman Schultz? He said,
we have a bond, we have cooperation, and we are going to work together
as it relates to defense for the region.
Here is a man, the President of Iran, that has said, I want to debate
the U.S. President. Not only do I want to debate the U.S. President, we
are willing to do everything that we have to do, and he has nuclear
weapons right now that are in development that are pointed at our
allies in the Middle East and could be a threat to the United States of
America.
When we started talking about the facts, we have a notebook of facts.
As a matter of fact, we have a whole milk carton here of facts. The
fact is that the Republican majority can't come when they have full
control. It couldn't be better. It could not be better. How can you
have the majority in the Senate, a majority in the U.S. House, the
presidency of the United States of America, all of the cabinet
secretaries are on board, and it is a streamline. It is a streamline of
rubber stamping.
The President sits in the Oval Office, and we have evidence that the
private sector is welcome to the Oval Office, those individuals,
special interests, I wouldn't say private sector, I say special
interests that are sitting at the table, that are taking out their pens
and writing policy, and they send it to Capitol Hill.
When they send it to Capitol Hill, they are met at the front door.
The Republican leadership says, Mr. President, if you say that this is
the right thing to do, without a hearing, if a hearing even takes
place, because we have had bills that have come through the door of the
U.S. Capitol, and have been on the floor by the afternoon, this brings
a whole new meaning, Members,
[[Page H6639]]
to that old cartoon that says, I am just a bill on Capitol Hill, and it
goes through a process.
Guess what, that whole cartoon has to change now, because that is not
the case. It talks about the House and the Senate, and it says it goes
to the President, the President vetoes it, it comes back to the House
and Senate, they want an override, and it becomes law.
But in this new version on Capitol Hill, first of all it starts with
the writing of the bill of a special interest here in Washington, D.C.
The special interests write the bill and someone over in the White
House says, oh, would you, okay. That is fine. This is good. Okay,
done. That is not a democracy. It comes here, and it goes through the
process, and it starts with a special interest. So we have to rewrite
that cartoon.
I look forward to Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You said tonight you wanted
to talk a little bit about the homeland. You ran out of time last night
as to some of the facts.
I also have some other facts over here, but I think it is very, very
important, as we start looking at www.HouseDemocrats.gov/30Something,
our whole plan as it relates to moving America in a new direction
versus the wrong direction. Like I said at the beginning, I would be
very nervous if I was a Member of the majority side. I would be very
nervous, and I would run down to the floor and take every minute that I
can take, every hour that I can take on the floor, trying to come up
with the words of how they explain why things are not what they should
be in the war in Iraq, in Afghanistan as it relates to, you know, Osama
bin Laden releasing audiotapes and members of his regime, audiotapes
constantly, videotapes, why we don't have health care in America, why
do we have a number of red and blue States suing the government, lack
of Federal education funding, why small businesses can't provide health
care, why we have an out-of-control deficit.
Why don't we have bipartisanship here in the U.S. House of
Representatives that the American people have asked for? Why do we have
veterans that are waiting for weeks, months sometimes, for health care?
Why, in our own words, why aren't we dealing with meaningful
legislation in the last 8 days of this Congress?
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much to my good friend, Mr.
Meek from Florida, friend and neighbor. It is funny, before we started
this hour for our 30-Something Working Group, we had an opportunity to
listen to our good friends on the other side of the aisle, and their
rhetoric.
I was reminded of the Doug Flutie ``Hail Mary'' pass. I think Mr.
Flutie played for the New England Patriots in that game, and it was
that ``Hail Mary'' pass that was pretty darn memorable.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Actually it was Boston College, and it was with
the University of Miami.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are right. I stand corrected. You are
probably a little bit more accurate on your football knowledge than I
am. But I do remember the Doug Flutie ``Hail Mary'' pass.
That is what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are
engaged in at this point, they are out of options. They are trying the
tired path of scare tactics to try to convince the American people that
they are actually the ones who are strongest on national security and
homeland security.
There is just too much evidence mounted against them that is
transparent and apparent to the American people, that they see it every
single day. All anyone has to do is turn on the news, any channel, any
hour that the news is on, to see that things aren't going so well and
``stay the course.'' All ``stay the course'' amounts to is a slogan,
not a strategy.
If ``stay the course'' is their strategy, then I feel incredibly
confident about what will happen 54 days from now. Everywhere I go, and
I have been all over the country, so have you in recent weeks and
months, people, even the most conservative individuals who I have had
an opportunity to talk to, are dumbfounded that the Republicans have
led us down this path, and are trying to lead people in America to
believe that they are moving us in the right direction on protecting
our Homeland.
Monday was the 5-year anniversary, as you mentioned, of September 11.
I was home, and I mentioned the last couple of nights that I was home
with our first responders commemorating that tragic set of events. One
of the most disturbing things, what we did was we actually did a
roundtable with our first responders and sat down and asked them, where
are we 5 years later? Are all the things that we said and identified
that were problems in the aftermath of 9/11, have they been addressed,
are we working on them, what do you still need?
We really have to listen, that is our job, because we need to listen
to our first responders and find out from them what is really going on
the ground. I remember, I am sure you do too, that one of the most
significant problems that was identified that has been talked about
across this country is the interoperability, which is a word that is
difficult to understand. That means the inability for the first
responders on 9/11 to communicate with each other while the event was
unfolding.
That was one of the major, major recommendations of the bipartisan 9/
11 Commission that we had to fund and improve the interoperability so
that across all of the jurisdiction, all of the intelligence and law
enforcement jurisdictions, that there could be communication.
{time} 2100
The FBI couldn't talk to the firefighters, couldn't talk to the
police officers. And today, 5 years later, that is still not in place.
Even though it was a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. And it
boils down to funding. You have to fund it. There is no way around it,
there is no other way to accomplish it.
But what are we doing instead? What are we spending our money on?
Let's look at what the war in Iraq currently costs.
Currently we are spending $8.4 billion with a B a month. We are
spending $1.9 billion per week in Iraq on this war, $275 million per
day, $11.5 million per hour.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. We are going to lay this on the table here, so
the U.S. taxpayers know what they are paying for and also the Members
know what they are paying for.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Let's remember this picture. We have funded
this relationship. We have made this relationship between the Prime
Minister of Iraq and the President of Iran, we have made that happen.
These were sworn enemies. During our formative years Mr. Meek, Iraq and
Iran were at war, bitter locked-horns war. If you recall, it was the
Sunnis led by Saddam Hussein in Iraq versus the Shiites in Iran.
What has occurred is that we have done by our actions in Iraq what
thousands of years could not accomplish. We have basically upended the
stability that existed there and brought the Shiites into control, and
basically created a hotbed of chaos and terrorism that didn't exist
before.
Now, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and President Bush
would like very much to lead the American people and the international
community to believe that the war on terror actually exists in Iraq.
But every international expert that has weighed in on this insists that
that is not the case; that the chaos that exists there now was created
and that the war on terror doesn't need to be fought in Iraq. The way
we fight the war on terror is making sure that the homeland is secure.
But we can't do that, because our priorities are in the wrong place and
we are spending this kind of money in Iraq.
I could stand here and make these claims all day long, but nobody
would identify me as an expert on terrorism or on the conflict, the war
in Iraq. I am a Member of Congress, elected to represent my
constituents.
So let's turn to the people that we did ask to identify the problems
in the aftermath of 9/11 and the war on terror and the things we needed
to do to protect our homeland, The bipartisan 9/11 Commission, which
was chaired by former Governor Tom Kean of New Jersey, a very well
respected Republican, and former Member of Congress Lee Hamilton, a
very well respected former
[[Page H6640]]
Member of Congress. All the commissioners on there were chosen for
their expertise.
Let me just go through what they said on Monday. They wrote a public
opinion piece, an op-ed that was published in the Boston Globe and I
know many other papers, and what they said this:
``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.''
And, boy do we know that, because it is the Congress' job to
implement. All the recommendations in the world can come down from
experts, but if Congress doesn't pass a law, like you said, the
schoolhouse rock explanation of it has to go through the legislative
process, it has to pass the committees, it has to pass both houses in
the same form and go up to the President and he has to sign it, that
hasn't happened.
What they said is, ``We issued a report card on our recommendations
in December. It included 10 C's, 12 D's and 4 F's. What we argued then
is still true now, Americans are safer, but we are not yet safe.''
That was the one question that I got the most often on Monday, Mr.
Meek, was, ``Debbie, are we safer?'' I got asked that question by the
press, I got asked that question by constituents, and the answer from
the people that would know, the chairs of the 9/11 Commission, was we
are safer, but we are not yet safe. Now, that is not a ringing
endorsement over our efforts in the last 5 years.
So they asked, what do we need to do, because that is what people
want to know.
``First, homeland security dollars must be allocated wisely. Right
now those funds are spread around like revenue sharing projects.''
We had our friends on the other side of the aisle claim that they
passed this remarkable earmark reform legislation today, which
essentially only identifies a few individuals and ties them to the
projects that they proposed. But basically what the 9/11 Commission is
saying is that there are a bunch of little projects that Members have
been able to insert into the process, but no regional or comprehensive
approach to appropriating homeland security dollars so that you can get
the really big, significant projects accomplished, like
interoperability.
``Until Congress passes a law to allocate funding on the basis of
risks and vulnerabilities, scarce dollars will continue to be
squandered.'' This is Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton's words, not ours.
``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.'' And if the directions were coming down from the Department of
Homeland Security and Secretary Chertoff and there was a plan in place
and we had our priorities right, then they would know that. But there
isn't
``Third, we called on Congress to give first responders a slice of
the broadcast spectrum ideal for emergency communications.'' Again, the
interpretability so they could communicate with each other.
``Those frequencies, which easily carry messages through concrete and
steel, are now held by TV broadcasters and will not be turned over to
first responders until 2009.'' What are we waiting for? They ask, ``Why
should public safety wait another 3 years?''
``Fourth, progress on information sharing among government agencies
is still lagging. Because of failures in this area, we missed many
chances to disrupt the September 11 plot. The Federal Government is
doing a better job, but there are still turf fights and gaps in
information sharing, especially with State and local authorities.''
Mr. Meek, that was one of the things that was the most striking to me
on Monday when I sat with our first responders in South Florida. What
they said was that only 15 percent of their funding for homeland
security comes from us, from the Federal Government. Eight-five percent
of what they were able to accomplish in the last 5 years was only due
to the fact that our sheriff's office and our county have been very
cooperative and stepped up to the plate and gotten what they needed to
do done. But there is a long way for them to go, and there is no excuse
for only 15 percent of the funding coming from the Federal Government
to secure our homeland, except that we have billions of dollars going
over to Iraq.
``Fifth, FBI reform is moving in the right direction, but far too
slowly. Problems continue to plague the Bureau. Inadequate information
technology, deficiencies in analytical capabilities and too much
turnover in the workforce and Bureau leadership. The bureau still
struggles.
``Sixth, we have taken a special interest in the Privacy and Civil
Liberties Oversight Board, which we recommended and the Congress
created. The importance of a second opinion before the executive branch
goes ahead with controversial information gathering measures is
essential.''
That just has not occurred. In fact, the majority is moving in the
opposite direction.
``Seventh, we still do not screen passengers against a comprehensive
terrorism watch list before they get on airplanes. The sensible answer
is for the government to do the name checking. Right now, airlines
screen passengers against an incomplete list.''
How is that possible? What I have noticed and what Americans really,
if they were asked, if we went out of this Chamber and walked down the
street and we asked most Americans what they can identify as the most
tangible thing we have done to improve our homeland security, they
would probably answer that they have to remove their shoes before they
walk through a metal detector and they have to check their Coke at the
door.
We cannot rest our homeland security, the sum total of it, on taking
off your shoes and not taking your Coke on the plane. We have to go
much further than that. We don't check the cargo that goes in the belly
of the airplane, we check less than 5 percent of the containers that go
through our ports, and we have some graphical depictions of that as
well.
Look at this. Less than 6 percent of U.S. cargo is physically
inspected; 95 percent is not inspected.
Let's take a look at some other statistics. This Republican Congress
has shortchanged port security by more than $6 billion. The Coast Guard
indicated after 9/11 when they talked about how much they needed for
the Maritime Transportation Security Act that they needed more than $7
billion. We have appropriated $900 million, Mr. Meek. The facts are all
there. The words are spoken on the other side, but the facts just don't
back it up.
I am going to go through the last couple of items, because this is so
damning. And this isn't coming from Democrats, this is coming from the
bipartisan chairs of the 9/11 Commission, and they wrote this Monday.
``Eighth, security is not just a question of airplane procedures,''
like I was just saying. ``The fundamental problem is radicalization in
the Muslim world. The enduring threat is not Osama bin Laden, but young
Muslims without jobs or hope who are angry with their governments, who
don't like the war in Iraq or U.S. foreign policy. We need to do a
better job reaching out to the Muslim world so that America is seen as
a source of hope and opportunity, not despair.''
Now, one of the worst things that has happened since our invasion of
Iraq is the decline in the perception of America's standing in the
world. We have so degraded our relationships with foreign nations and
world leaders and the perception of America has so badly deteriorated
that you have young Muslims and young individuals across the globe who
have a view of America that is the opposite of what kids worldwide and
individuals worldwide looked at America when President Kennedy,
President Johnson, President Reagan were in office.
What this administration and this President have done to the
perception of America internationally is abominable.
[[Page H6641]]
``Ninth, Congress needs to reform itself.'' Now, this is very
interesting. This is one of the most particularly damming
recommendations and criticisms coming from the 9/11 Commission chairs.
``Congress has provided powerful powers to the executive branch in
order to protect the Nation. To protect our freedoms, it now needs to
be an effective check on the executive. Because so much information is
classified, Congress is the only source of independent oversight on
intelligence and homeland security issues. The oversight committees
need stronger powers over budgets and jurisdiction.''
That says it all right there, Mr. Meek. The leadership of this
Congress, the Republican leadership of this Congress, has ceded the
Congress's oversight authority to the executive branch. They have
thrown up their hands and given up and said, you do whatever you want,
because what are they, Mr. Meek? They are a rubber stamp Republican
Congress and they do whatever the administration wants. They lay down
and do whatever they ask. And it even shocks the conscience of the
chairs of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission.
When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they wrote it so
that there would be a system of checks and balances, so that we are a
coequal branch of government. Only this administration and this
leadership in this Congress don't seem to want to adhere to that.
``Finally,'' they say in this piece, ``preventing terrorists from
gaining access to nuclear weapons must be elevated against all other
problems of national security.'' Just like you were referring to a few
minutes ago.
They ignore North Korea, they ignore Iran. They are doing a lot of
hand-wringing over Iran because we are spread so thin militarily, and,
Mr. Meek, you are on the Homeland Security Committee, you would know
better than anybody else, that we are spread so thin militarily that we
don't even have all the tools in our arsenal available to us, because
we are all over the place worldwide militarily.
``Nuclear terrorism would have a devastating impact. The commission
called for a maximum effort against this threat, including stepped up
efforts to secure loose nuclear materials abroad, and our current
efforts fall far short.''
They close by saying, ``We will surely face more terrorist attacks,
yet our sense of national urgency is lacking. Our elected leaders need
to act now to provide for the common defense, because the terrorists
will not wait.''
If that isn't a damning indictment of our efforts in homeland
security and the Republicans' inaction, then I don't know what is.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Well, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I think it is
important for me to just share some information with the Members, Mr.
Speaker, is the fact that what Ms. Wasserman Schultz has just gone
through is not only factual, it wasn't written by the Democratic
minority, it wasn't written by some person over at the Democratic
National Committee. This is from the 9/11 Commission, and they just
recently released it, a bipartisan commission.
Number two, it is almost not fair, Mr. Speaker, for us to share this
information, not only with the Members, but with others, because it is
so accurate and it is unfortunate that it is accurate. At no other time
in the history of this country have we found ourselves in this posture.
{time} 2115
Now, Members can come to the floor and start talking about what we
are going to do with other countries. We owe other countries money. We
are borrowing from other countries like we have never borrowed before
in the history of the Republic, and that is the reason why we feel
encouraged to come to the floor night after night, day after day, week
after week, month after month, year after year, and put it on printed
paper in the Congressional Record. So when historians look at this time
and wonder where was the U.S. Congress when all this was happening, I
believe that historians are going to look back on this time and say the
American people rose up, Democrats, Republicans, independents, those
that could not vote that made themselves eligible to vote to stop this
from happening.
Now, Ms. Wasserman Schultz mentioned something about military
preparedness and the fact that we cannot even respond to other issues
that may happen in the world. I am on the Armed Services Committee, and
we come to the floor to conduct serious business. This is not some sort
of news show where someone asks you a question, some sort of trick
question, and you try to respond within 3 minutes. This is the U.S.
Congress. This is not a 501(c)(3). I talked about that last night.
What we have here, Mr. Speaker, is a rubber stamp Congress that is
willing to rubber stamp anything that the President sends to Capitol
Hill. It is very unfortunate that this is the case. And because of
that, we have ourselves in this situation.
Under the leadership of the President and the Secretary Rumsfeld,
U.S. military readiness has dropped to historic lows. The U.S. Army
readiness, in particular, has dropped to levels not seen since 1970 and
will continue to be stressed by combat in Iraq which falls most heavily
on the Army and Marine Corps. Two-thirds of army operating force,
active and reserve, is now reporting in as unready, and there is not a
single nondeployment of an army brigade combat team in the United
States of America that is ready to be deployed.
What is the reference point here? It is not the Democratic National
Committee. It is not even the Democratic Caucus. It is the National
Security Advisory Group. When? August 1 of 2006. These are individuals
that are supposed to be the watchdog of national security. That is with
what they are saying.
How did this happen, Mr. Speaker? It didn't happen because the Army
and Marines said, Hey, we want to overextend ourselves and we want to
put ourselves in a position to where every brigade has been deployed to
Iraq. This is the situation that we are in when we go alone.
Now, let us just put Iraq aside just for a second. When you look at
the testimony and those retired generals that are now free to say
whatever they want to say since they are no longer in the Department of
Defense, and, Mr. Speaker, I must say for the record, Secretary
Rumsfeld just said recently, the last couple of days, anyone who comes
to him about the issue of redeployment within the Department of Defense
can go find another job, in so many words. Was there a chairperson of a
subcommittee in Armed Services or the Appropriations Committee as it
relates to armed services, the Department of Defense? Was there the
Chair of the full Committee on Appropriations in the U.S. House? Was
there a Chair of the Armed Services Committee that said wait a minute,
hold it, I am sorry? Is this the same administration and the same
Secretary of Defense that said we take our lead from the commanders in
the field and from those experts that wear the uniform that have made a
statement such as that? If I was a four-star general, a three-star
general, or want to be a three-star general, a two-star general or a
brigadier general or a colonel that wants to one day become a colonel,
I think I may step back and say, well, one of two things. Either I am
going to be quiet in the Department of Defense in this democracy that
we call the United States of America or I am going to retire. Guess
what. These generals have retired and they are talking, and they are
talking about their frustration. These heroes for our country are now
taking it upon themselves because they allowed us to this point to
salute one flag, and they said they will give up their careers and they
will step out of the Department of Defense to be able to let the
American people know what is going on.
Look at these generals. Look at them. You would have some Members of
Congress who say why are they speaking against the Department of
Defense? Why aren't they still in the fight? Well, they are in a fight
for democracy and the truth. They are in a fight to make sure that the
American people know exactly what is going on. They are in a fight for
the very reason why people have fought and died for this country to
allow the American people to know better.
Now, let me just mention something very quickly because I want to
make
[[Page H6642]]
sure that all of the Members know exactly what they need to know as it
relates to the national security plan. Real Security,
housedemocrats.gov/30something. You can go on there and get the Real
Security plan.
Energy independence. Folks talk about Saudi Arabia. We, the
Democratic Caucus here in this House, want to invest in the Midwest
versus the Middle East. We want to use our natural resources. We want
to use coal. We want to use E-85, which can be made out of corn and
what have here in the United States of America. Energizing America. Go
on housedemocrats.gov.
You want to talk about innovation? You want to talk about education?
You want to talk about domestic issues? You want to even see quotes
from CEOs, Democrats, Republicans, and independents, that are trying to
find a workforce innovating America? You want broadband access
throughout America? We are nowhere close to where the Republican
majority and the White House have said we are going to be as it relates
to broadband. Right here: Innovation Agenda.
We have six points, Mr. Speaker, in 2006 to make sure that American
people know that we have the will and the desire to lead this country
in a new direction versus the wrong direction. This is not talk. This
is action. There are bills right now filed in the 109th Congress in
this second session that will deal with the issue of education, health
care, national security, the war in Iraq.
We have a plan for the war in Iraq. What is the Republican majority
plan? Stay the course? That is one line. Stay the course. Stay the
course what? What is your plan? Where is the coalition? You are in
control. It is almost like someone driving a car and you are a
passenger in the car. You are trying to grab the wheel, but meanwhile
someone is there hitting your arm, saying, ``You can't grab the wheel
because we are in charge. We paid for this car. We are moving this car
in this direction, and this is what we are going to do.'' And the
bottom line is that may be okay in a trip from Washington, D.C. to
Richmond, Virginia, but it is not okay when you are talking about the
United States of America and protecting America.
You want to talk about what we want to do as it relates to homeland
security? We want to implement what Ms. Wasserman Schultz talked about,
the bipartisan commission, the full 9/11 recommendations. What are
they? Well, we have got individuals going to the plane, giving up hand
sanitizers, guzzling down water, taking off shoes, belts, and what have
you, having to leave a picture frame or something there at the
Transportation Security Agency, TSA, there at the gate. Meanwhile a
container comes in on a truck, a cargo container, goes right in the
belly of the plane. It could be packed full of explosives. We will
never know.
But it does not satisfy me in any way to come to the floor after a
terrorist attack happens to say I told you so. That is not what the
point is here. The point is it is protecting America by doing what the
9/11 Commission called for.
What else did they call for? Something very simple. Other countries
are doing it. A 100 percent container check on cargo ships that are
coming into the ports of the United States of America. Oh, wow, that is
something simple. That are then loaded on trucks and that are going out
to the United States of America in towns and cities and counties and
urban areas throughout America. The terrorists are patient, very
patient. 9/11 took a long time to plan. Why should we wait to learn
what the terrorists' new plan may be?
There are Members on this floor that are making personal attacks on
other Members of Congress. What are those personal attacks? Well, you
know, we feel that the Democrats are holding us back and are they for
the terrorists or are they for the United States of America? That is
silly. I am just going to go ahead and say that is silly. I won't even
go so far as saying that the Republican majority is helping the
terrorists. I wouldn't say anything like that. But that is what
happens, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, when you are gasping for air. When it
is desperation.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Doug Flutie.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you. A Doug Flutie Hail Mary pass when the
clock has now hit almost 0:00 and trying to sensationalize a speech or
just saying that, well, I will just say this even though it is not
true. I know it is not true. And we even have Republican leaders that
have made those kinds of statements and have been asked by the press
about them and then said, well, I didn't really mean that, but they
thought it was important for them to say it here in the Congressional
Record in the House of Representatives for several generations to see
beyond this one.
So I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that we talk about the
facts. And if I can for just a moment, the fact is this: We borrow from
foreign countries like we have never borrowed before. And I think it is
important that I pull this chart out.
This Republican Congress and President Bush, and he couldn't do it by
himself, borrowed in 4 years $1.05 trillion; versus 42 Presidents, 224
years in the history of this country, have been only able to borrow
1.01. I will say that until the 109th Congress and beyond because in
the 110th Congress, if the American people will see fit, we will pull
this chart out again and we will talk about our guarantee to knock this
number down. Forty-two Presidents, 224 years, World War I, World War
II, other conflicts, the Great Depression, you name it, it has been a
part of the history of this country. One the President, one Congress,
$1.05 trillion, and counting, borrowing from foreign nations.
Mr. Speaker, where did we get these numbers from? Why don't we start
with the U.S. Department of Treasury. Who are the countries? Let us
look at this: Japan, coming in at a whopping $682.8 billion. China,
coming in at $249.8 billion.
We have Members coming to the floor talking about we are going to be
the superpower and economic power of the world. Guess what. We owe
these people money. How could we go to them with a straight face and
say this is what we are going to do and this is how we are going to do
it because we are the United States of America? First of all, you need
to let go of the money that you owe me as a country. You owe us. That
is almost like going to your next-door neighbor and borrowing $300 and
then coming to them and telling them about what kind of plants they
should be planting in front of their house. How can you tell them, Mr.
Speaker, when you owe them money? First of all, you can't even get into
the conversation about what they should do and how they should do it as
a country and working in whatever cooperation it may be. It could be a
G-8 summit. It could be an issue dealing with the environment. They are
going to say, First of all, before you even get that out, now that you
are finished, when are you going to pay back this $682.8 billion you
owe me as a country and my people?
So the Republican majority, with the White House, has placed us in a
situation that we have never been in before. This is a rubber stamp.
The Republican majority knows it. It is on the floor every night. Just
like this mike is here, this Republican rubber stamp is here.
Mr. Speaker, one guarantee. When the Democrats take control of this
House, we are going to have a ceremony maybe about 150 yards away from
the Capitol building so that we can burn this rubber stamp, so that we
can then hold up the Constitution, so that we can hold up article I,
section 1 of the U.S. Constitution and say we will legislate. We will
have oversight. We will not have Katrina contractors running away with
U.S. tax dollars. We will not have a farm field full of trailers and
meanwhile we have people in Mississippi and Louisiana homeless. This
will not happen. We will not wait, as the Federal Government, for 3 to
4 days and watch people suffer on international television and then
come back to Washington, DC, saying that we are sending blankets and
ice and we just started.
{time} 2130
We will be there for the American people. This Constitution here,
Article I, section 1, of this Constitution says that we have the
legislative powers of this country and it lands here in the Congress,
the Congress that consists of
[[Page H6643]]
the House and the Senate. But we cannot do it in a rubber-stamp
atmosphere. If there is a Republican, Independent, Green Party,
Democrat, somebody that is thinking about voting, somebody that is
about to turn 18, they have to have a problem, Mr. Speaker, in the way
this country is being operated.
Now, I am going to turn this over to Ms. Wasserman Schultz in a
minute, but let's talk about dollars and cents, if we can talk a little
bit about the whole domestic piece, the priorities.
There are some people that would love for us to talk about the war in
Iraq. Well, guess what, there is pain and suffering that is going on
right here in the United States of America every day from community to
community, need it be a parish or a county, need it be a city or a
town, or need it be a suburb, they are going through real issues.
Talk about the minimum wage. Here is a sheet right here, Mr. Speaker.
This year alone, nine attempts by the Democratic Caucus to raise the
minimum wage in America that has not been raised since 1997. Since
1997, $5.15 an hour. You know, it is very, very unfortunate, Mr.
Speaker, that that is the fact. The Democratic plan that we have been
pushing for a very long time is to move it from that number up to
$7.25.
But look what happened, Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You would think these
are minimum wage increases. Oh, no, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Speaker.
These are Members of Congress. Oh, yes. We are starting to buy a couple
of new suits, a couple of St. Johns.
I am not calling anyone out, I am just saying that is what it is. And
the bottom line is that since 1997, the Republican majority has been in
control, they have been getting paid, and I mean paid, every year. And
I am going to tell you, as a Member of Congress that has to keep a home
in Miami and one here in Washington, D.C., it is a strain on Members of
Congress.
And you know something, I don't think the American people have a real
huge problem with the issue of Members of Congress being able to
support their families, this, that, and the other. But when we don't
support them, when we don't have their back, then that is the problem.
And I know, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, you are dying to get in on this,
but let me just mention this. 1998, $3,100 for Members of Congress,
zero for the American people. $4,600 for U.S. Members of Congress, zero
for the American people. $3,800, zero for the American people. $4,900,
zero for the American people. 2003 on to 2006, you see the numbers.
2006, $3,100, zero for the American people.
Now, let me just make sure I am factual, Mr. Speaker, because that is
what we do in the 30-Something Working Group, because this is not about
dancing in the end zone. The Republican Congress brought up a bill
talking about the minimum wage, and they put together a bill that would
not see the light of day in the U.S. Senate, would never see the desk
of the President of the United States. But just to say that we passed a
bill off the floor, that is what they wanted to do. Well, we called it
the Potomac Two-Step.
And the bottom line is this, Mr. Speaker. The American people, they
don't want slogans, they don't want talk; they want action. And this
Republican Congress has not put forth the action.
Now, to let you know in very blunt terms as I yield to Ms. Wasserman
Schultz, we are going to go 5 minutes and 5 minutes. I am into almost
my fifth minute here, but I am going to turn it over to you.
Let me just say this. Within the first 100 days of a House majority
by the Democrats, the minimum wage will be raised, period. Not a lot of
talking, not a lot of dancing around. The bill is already filed in this
Congress. But, guess what, the Republican majority doesn't have the
will or the desire to pass it.
And this is what it means for salaried workers: If the minimum wage
moves up to 7.25, then you will see workers that are on salary that are
making over the minimum wage, their wages will nine times out of ten go
up. Because to be able to get a workforce to what businesses need, they
need to pay their workers; that will then help hopefully pay for the
cost of health care that they have to pay. Some folks have to make the
decision, am I going to have health care or am I going to live? And
that is very, very unfortunate. But what has happened in this situation
is that the Republican majority has guaranteed that the minimum wage
will never be raised, will never deal with the issue of health care
because there won't be any dollars to deal with it.
So I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, to know exactly where we
stand. Homeland security, fully implementing the 9/11 recommendations.
Border security agents, the President sent to this Capitol Hill 216 in
his budget; we ask for 2,000 border agents to be able to protect our
borders just like the 9/11 Commission called for. If they were to
implement the Democratic amendments that came to this floor that were
voted down in a partisan way, the majority took over, we would have
6,000 new border agents working now on the U.S. border.
So when Members come to the floor on the majority side, on the
Republican side and start talking about, oh, we are tough because we
say we are tough. And the Democrats, they are holding us back. They are
in the majority; that is not true.
I will go ahead and say it: That is not true, Mr. Speaker. And the
bottom line is that, the fact is that we have come to this floor to
bring about real security in this country; and we will in a new
Congress if the Democrats are in control.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Meek. And I didn't ask the
gentleman to yield because you were on such a roll, and you did such an
incredible job of laying out the difference between what their
priorities are and continuing to run in place, or where we would take
us, which is a new direction for America.
The bottom line is that on every measure, on homeland security, on
the economy and jobs and the energy crisis, because there is no other
way to describe when you have to spend more than $50 to fill up the
average tank of gas, there is no other way to describe it except as a
crisis. When you have that situation facing you, when you have 46
million Americans who lack health insurance, which means when they are
sick they can't go to the doctor; when you have a President who is hell
bent on privatizing Social Security and yanking the rug out from under
seniors who have worked their entire lives so that they have a floor of
dignity holding them, so that they don't have to worry about choosing
between medicine and meals, then we have got to make sure that we come
to this floor every night and that we talk about the direction that we
would take them and that we would take this country.
Because we would invest in new alternative energy, we would invest
our resources in new alternative energy research. We would make sure
that the rhetoric that the President issued to us during the State of
the Union, where he said we have to end America's addiction on foreign
oil, that was just words with no action, that we will actually make
that investment and invest in the Midwest, in ethanol and corn
production and in our State and other States across the country that
produce sugar so that we can really make a commitment to disconnecting
ourselves from our dependence on foreign oil; so that we can actually
make sure that we pass a prescription drug plan and change the one that
the Republicans wrote for the pharmaceutical industry as opposed to the
senior citizens that desperately needed the assistance, that we rewrite
that plan so that seniors have the ability to pay for their drugs, so
that there is no doughnut hole that on September 22 our constituents
are going to be falling through and having an unbelievably difficult
time climbing out of. Those are the things that we would do.
After November 7, the new direction for America that we will take
this country in will restore that dignity to senior citizens, will make
sure that we create a prescription drug program that provides them with
the prescription drug assistance that they need, that will invest in
the Midwest, that will expand access to health care, that will make
sure that we can pass stem cell research into law, and restore the
accountability that this Congress should have been exercising and the
oversight that we should have been exercising.
[[Page H6644]]
I mean, really, why have a Congress? The way it has been operating
since I have been here, Mr. Meek, and I have been here almost 2 full
years now, why have a legislative branch? The rubber stamp, the rubber
stamp that is used here by the Republicans and their leadership, you
know, it makes having a Congress essentially unnecessary because they
just do whatever the administration wants anyway.
Listen, I could go home and spend a lot more time with my family than
come here and waste our time on naming post offices and banning horse
slaughtering. And not that those things aren't important; they are
important to some people, but they are not the priorities of this
country. They are not the priorities of the people when we go walking
down the street in our communities and when I go and take my kids to
their soccer game and to dance class, when I get in my car and drive my
minivan around town.
The people that I talk to, they don't get it. They are scratching
their heads, and they don't understand the rhetoric that is coming out
of here without any action, and they are yearning and begging us to
give them a new direction. We have got to provide them with that new
direction.
Mr. Meek, we come to this floor every night as the 30-something
Working Group, and I know we are about to wrap up here as we approach
the end of our 60 minutes. We really appreciate the opportunity that
Leader Pelosi gives us every night. And I want to direct our colleagues
to our Web site, our 30-something Web site, www.housedemocrats.gov/
30something. All of the charts that we have had out here are available
on that Web site, and we encourage folks to e-mail us with comments and
our colleagues to e-mail us with comments.
Mr. Meek, I yield to you.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
I want to thank the 30-Something Working Group for all the hard work.
And we will be back next week, Mr. Speaker. We would like to thank the
Democratic leader for allowing us to have the time.
____________________