[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 118 (Wednesday, September 20, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H6826-H6831]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE 30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP: DEMOCRATIC PROPOSALS
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McHenry). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Delahunt) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority
leader.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I can take the time of the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Meek), but I certainly cannot replace the leader of our
group which we call the ``30-somethings.'' I happen to be the
``something'' of that 30-something group.
I am sure that the younger members of the group will join me soon,
but they are out right now. If they are watching, I hope they come soon
to the floor, where we can talk about the problems with our economy,
and clearly there are many. But as I sat here listening to the previous
speakers, who are members of the House International Relations
Committee, I feel compelled to speak to their remarks.
I think the gentlelady who chairs the Middle East Subcommittee spoke
about the unified government that now sits in Iraq. Well, her
understanding and my understanding of the term ``unified'' I would
suggest are irreconcilable.
The Iraqi parliament since it was constituted has been unable to
agree on hardly any issue. In fact, they have entered into a
particularly fractious moment where the continued existence of the
government is in some doubt.
But what I find interesting is the only issue that they have agreed
on, and it is important to understand that there is some 275 members of
the Iraqi parliament, is a resolution condemning the State of Israel
for defending itself.
{time} 2100
The language that the Iraqi Parliament used in that resolution was
condemning the criminal aggression of the State of Israel in defending
itself.
Now, clearly we can have a debate on the relationships in the Middle
East where we can have differences and we can educate and inform each
other, but to say that there is a unified government in Iraq today is
simply inaccurate. It is not true. It is very problematic, and both
speakers and their colleagues and friends of mine continue to make
references to Iran and how we need to have a strong, democratic Iraq to
help us as we attempt to navigate the shoals of the political realities
in the Middle East.
But the problem is what is not spoken about, at least in this
Chamber, on this night, is the fact of a growing warm relationship
between Iraq and Iran, not the United States and Iraq, but Iraq and
Iran.
Mr. Speaker, this is irrefutable. There are some in the Iraqi
Parliament today who are stridently adversarial to the United States.
Moqtada al-Sadr, a Shiite leader, who has at his disposal a militia
that is called Ahmadi Army, has 30 members of that 275-member body who
are loyal to him. And maybe it has been forgotten, but it was the
United States military that sought to apprehend him on the charges of
murder some several years ago.
We cannot make it up, Mr. Speaker. We have to speak the truth, the
unvarnished truth, and stringing together platitudes about democracy
does not cut it, Mr. Speaker.
What is the reality today in Iraq? Well, this photo to my right
speaks to that reality. To the far right is the Prime Minister of Iraq,
Mr. Maliki, and with him is the President of Iran who spoke yesterday
in the United Nations, spoke in the United States in New York at the
U.N., who I hear many in this Chamber demonize, and with some cause. He
is a Holocaust denier, but who he is shaking hands with, Mr. Speaker?
He is shaking hands with the Prime Minister of Iraq.
And by the way, Mr. Speaker, we invited the Prime Minister of Iraq to
come and address the United States Congress, which he did right in this
very Chamber, and a week or two later he is in Tehran, shaking hands
with the President of Iran. Now, that is not the full story, Mr.
Speaker. There is more. There is much more.
Now, I am not suggesting that there is an alliance yet between Iraq
and Iran, but do not let it go unnoticed that many in the current
government in Iraq spent years in exile in Tehran. There are
relationships between many of the political figures in both of these
countries. Let us not continue to paint this rosy scenario that simply
is inaccurate. It is not true. I am not suggesting anyone is
intentionally misleading, but these are the facts. This is the picture.
Now, one might say, well, they are neighbors and there has to be some
rapport that benefits everybody. I do not necessarily disagree with
that; but go back to 1980-1988, they were 8 years at war, Mr. Speaker,
a war that took hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides. Iraq and
Iran were bitter enemies, and today, Mr. Speaker, we have a handshake;
but, like I said, we have much more.
The Iranians, not the Americans, Mr. Speaker, but the Iranians are
building an international airport near Najaf, which is a major Shiite
city in southern Iraq. Mr. Speaker, the Iranian Government is providing
$1 billion worth of credits to the private sector in Iraq.
But this is the cherry on top of the ice cream sundae, Mr. Speaker.
Iraq and Iran, which dominates the conversation here in Washington,
which is part of the front-page news daily in this country, Iraq and
Iran have consummated a bilateral military cooperation agreement, Mr.
Speaker. Can anybody explain that? I cannot explain it, Mr. Speaker. I
cannot. I cannot figure that out.
But what I do see is the reality of almost 3,000 American soldiers
dead in Iraq, in excess of 20,000 wounded, many of whom are severely
wounded, whose lives are forever impaired by some permanent disability.
I see the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars of American
taxpayers' hard-earned income in Iraq. And what is the progress that I
see, Mr. Speaker? Well, I see the handshake, I see this relationship,
and I see a bilateral military cooperation agreement, Mr. Speaker. Can
you or somebody from the majority side please explain what that is all
about?
I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that information came to me from the
Congressional Research Service, and Mr. Speaker, realize that that
service is a
[[Page H6827]]
bipartisan agency, created by Congress to provide Members unvarnished,
factual information.
So we stand here on the floor and we talk about how good it is and we
are for democracy, but you know what, Mr. Speaker? What kind of
democracy are we getting at the cost of thousands of lives of American
soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars from the hard-earned
income of the American taxpayer? Is this what we are getting? Does this
serve our national interests? I do not know, Mr. Speaker. I do not
know. But I have to tell you something. I do not think anybody in this
body knows, and that is an indictment, Mr. Speaker, on the wall of this
institution because the majority party ought to have insisted, in the
course of the exercise of its oversight role and responsibility, on
answers to these very simple questions. But oh no, let us ignore them
and get up and talk about democracy.
My friend from Michigan, a very erudite, very thoughtful gentleman,
has an interesting view of history, is conversant with history, and
history gives us context, but to ignore what the reality is on the
ground, I see my friend from Florida walked in. I want to welcome him.
I know he has had a busy evening. It is good to have Mr. Meek here
finally.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, it is
always a pleasure to join you in doing the 30-Something hour, and since
us ``somethings'' are carrying the hour tonight, since we do not have
the 30s here, I understand they are en route, but I want to thank you
for your dedication to be able to deliver a positive message here in
the Congress.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I am not really delivering a positive message. What I
am is expressing a concern about the lack of oversight and the lack of
accountability or calling to account the actions of this administration
by this Republican Congress. We have a right to know. It is a debt that
is owed us. It is a debt of blood and hundreds of billions of dollars,
Mr. Speaker.
There is a long list of emerging relationships and agreements between
these two countries. Iran and Iraq just recently signed a memorandum of
understanding, under which pipelines would be constructed to allow Iran
to import Iraqi crude oil from Basra. Under the agreement, Iran is to
finance the three pipelines that will be built to implement the
agreement. Again, this is from a report from the Congressional Research
Service dated June 14, 2006. That is before the famous handshake.
To say or suggest that things are going well in Afghanistan, Mr.
Speaker, is a disconnect from reality, and the American people deserve
the absolute, full truth as to what the reality is.
{time} 2115
Mr. Speaker, we had a hearing today in International Relations. Its
focus was Afghanistan. It was extremely disturbing, Mr. Speaker,
because 5 years later, Afghanistan is heading quickly in the wrong
direction.
President Bush says we are winning the war on terror. And I will
stipulate not on Iraq, but our invasion of Iraq, which I and every
other Members of Congress voted for, was about the war on terror. Well,
Mr. Speaker, if we are going to win the war on terror, we need to
change Commanders in Chief and have a Congress that will hold these
people responsible, because I will tell you something, we are doing
everything to lose Afghanistan. It has become a narcostate. In the year
2001, there were 73 tons of opium, which is used to make heroin. This
past year, there were 6,100 tons of poppy and opium.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Delahunt, when I came and shared with you the positive message, I
mean, when I said the positive message, I wanted to make sure that
people understand there are people here in the Congress willing to work
in a bipartisan way to make sure that we do the things that we need to
do to make sure that the American troops that are on the ground not
only in Afghanistan, but in the war in Iraq, that there are Members of
Congress who are willing to come to the floor and give voice to those
individuals who are there.
Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman would yield for just a minute. I was
here listening to several of our colleagues on the other side speak
about these various issues, and I just felt the need to put out what
the realities are rather than simply talk in terms that are hopeful and
optimistic, but in a world apart from what the reality is.
If this administration is sincere, of course it is, about winning the
war on terror, there has to be a dramatic change in direction. Listen
to this just for one moment, if you would. If you would, Mr. Meek.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I have to, Mr. Delahunt.
Mr. DELAHUNT. This is in contrast to what was said earlier here on
the floor: United States efforts in Afghanistan are failing.
Afghanistan faces its highest levels of violence and corruption since
its liberation. Drug money continues to finance terrorism. That
failure, coupled with the aggressive efforts of the terrorists,
threatens to destroy Afghanistan's democracy, a free government that
Americans and coalition forces have died to support.
Mr. Meek, Mr. Speaker, those are not my words. Those are the words of
the Chairman of the House International Relations Committee, Henry
Hyde, in a letter that he sent this week to President Bush.
So please don't come down to this floor and paint a rosy picture. We
are in trouble. The world is in trouble. And if we are going to win the
war on terror, we have got to change direction and develop a strategy
that will accomplish that after 5 years. It is 5 years since 9/11, and
Afghanistan is back to ground zero.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Delahunt. I think it is important
to the point, sir, that the 30-Something Working Group, we come to the
floor to share the truth and to share the reality of what is happening
here in Congress and what is not happening here in Congress. And I
think it is very, very important, very important that we bring the
facts to the floor.
As you know, General Abizaid, who is over Central Command and the
lead commander in Iraq, said earlier this year that after Iraqi
elections, Mr. Speaker, that we would see a downtick in U.S. troops in
Iraq, in the war in Iraq.
Because of a lack of a coalition, Mr. Speaker, Iraqis are no longer
in the driver's seat as it relates to being able to stand up on behalf
of their country. And so because we don't have a coalition, and the
second largest coalition in Iraq, Mr. Delahunt, is U.S. contractors
paid for by U.S. taxpayers.
And I have another example, because I believe there is a war in Iraq,
but there is also misunderstanding and deception here as it relates to
border security, Mr. Delahunt. This is fact, not fiction. And I just
want to take 3 minutes to just talk about fact, not fiction, because I
know that Mr. Ryan is here, Ms. Wasserman Schultz is here, and we need
to be able to lay these facts out.
Just today was a story leaked, and tomorrow the Boeing Company will
receive what we call the SBInet that will do surveillance on the border
between the U.S. and Mexico and also between the U.S. and Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I have to say that we had two other initiatives prior to
this one as it relates to surveillance of our borders that spent $426
million, Mr. Speaker, and it was cost overruns and did not meet the
contractual agreement that they made with the Department of Homeland
Security. Now, this is a $2.5 billion initiative that Boeing will have.
Let's put Boeing aside, because I am not here to talk about Boeing. I
am here to talk about the lack of capacity of the Department of
Homeland Security and the lack of effort as it relates to the Congress
to make sure that we protect our borders.
The 9/11 Commission that I spoke of in detail last week, Mr. Speaker,
said that we need 2,000 Border Patrol agents per year; 2,000 Border
Patrol agents per year. You thought the President heard that message?
Maybe not. You want to talk tough on border security and homeland
security, or you just want to talk common sense on border security and
homeland security?
The President sent his budget to this Congress because he felt that
he could do it, because this Congress, A, doesn't have the will and the
desire as it relates to the Republican majority to make sure that we
have enough border agents on the border. Now, we can burn
[[Page H6828]]
all kinds of Federal jet fuel in the Republican leadership going down
to the border talking about, ``Oh, I am here to make sure that we
protect our borders, and we want to make sure that things go the way
they are supposed to go.'' But the bottom line is, and I think this is
important for every Member of Congress to understand, the fact is that
215 border agents were requested by this administration.
On the Democratic side of the aisle, Mr. Ryan, Ms. Wasserman Schultz,
Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Speaker, we call for 2,000 border agents in line with
the bipartisan 9/11 Commission report. Now, $2.5 billion, the
Department of Homeland Security and even before they were created
legacy agencies that are now in the Department of Homeland Security
oversaw the two initiatives prior to this new one, changing the name,
but not the oversight.
Now, I am the ranking member on Homeland Security and the
Subcommittee on Oversight, Management, and Integration. We have three
hearings, Mr. Speaker, and we had those hearings because the inspector
general of the Department of Homeland Security said that the money was
squandered, 426 million of the U.S. taxpayers' dollars. They had
cameras that didn't work. They had cameras in areas where Border Patrol
agents could not even respond to watching individuals cross the border
because they didn't have enough agents.
On 9/11, combining three shifts of 24-hour shifts on 9/11, there were
250 agents on the border between Canada and the United States of
America, 250. Now, we are not talking about all at once, we are talking
about three shifts. So I think it is important.
If we are going to talk about what the facts are, and that is what I
enjoy about our working group that we have here is that we come to the
floor with the facts. We have the will and desire because we have
amendment after amendment that shows that here on this side of the
aisle that we called for the 2,000 border agents since the 9/11 report
was released, that was a book in Barnes and Noble and on Amazon.com and
a number, and I encourage Americans to take a look at that, because
this Republican majority is not following that. Come to the floor,
tough talk, but not backing it up.
And the great frustration of so many Americans as it relates to not
only responding, yes, we can go out and link ourselves up and sing
``God Bless America'' out here on the steps of the Capitol, but the
real commitment to protecting and having real security that we call for
in our plan, HouseDemocrats.gov, anyone can get it, any Members of
Congress can get it, of real security is making sure that we scan our
containers for nuclear weapons, to make sure that we check air cargo
before it goes in. We have passengers and Americans basically taking
off everything to get on a plane, but meanwhile the cargo goes in the
bottom of the plane unchecked.
The frustration that Mr. Delahunt has is the fact that people come
down to the floor saying one thing, and it is actually another. It is
like me saying, ``Look over there,'' when the action is over here, or
the lack thereof.
So I think it is important that we outline these issues. Not the
Democratic Caucus, not Mr. Ryan, not Ms. Wasserman Schultz, not Mr.
Delahunt that comes here with this report. We are talking about the
inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security that says the
Department of Homeland Security doesn't have the management capacity to
oversee a contract even smaller than the $2.5 billion contract. So
nowadays before the election, Mr. Ryan, the Department of Homeland
Security is saying that we have monitors, and that we are going to
monitor the movement on the border. How about the apprehension of
individuals who are crossing the border? How about having border agents
who are able and detention centers that are able to handle the capacity
of those individuals who are coming over?
And then we had an amendment on the floor, a bill on the floor,
recently saying that we are going to build a double-link fence. I voted
against it because it was a joke. We are going to build a double-link
fence of 200 miles or so on the border that individuals are crossing;
but, better yet, it doesn't appropriate any money to build the fence.
You want to talk about the Potomac two-step in the worst way. That is
just like me going to my kids and saying, ``Hey, guess what? We are
getting ready to go to Walt Disney World, but meanwhile we don't have
the gas money to get there.''
I mean, you know, we are making fun of this, but what I am saying is
that this is for real. And so we have Members coming to the floor who
are representing to not only, Mr. Speaker, you, other Members of the
House that we are actually doing something on the majority side, and we
are not doing anything but saying we are going to go right, but then
going left. I am talking about the Republican majority that is doing
that.
So if we are going to be real, if we are going to have real security,
Mr. Speaker, that we talk so much about here on this floor on this side
of the aisle, if we get the majority of this House, we have the will
and the desire to implement the full recommendations of the 9/11
Commission.
You want to respect those families, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, that you
talked so eloquently about just a couple of days ago here on this floor
when you took the opportunity to walk the Members through what they
haven't done and what they should do? We want to respect the memory of
those individuals, we want to respect those first responders who put
their lives on the line, climbed up that building; some lost their
lives; some are still living with the aftermath of their heroism. If we
want to respect them, then let's do what they said do. And if you are a
Republican, Independent, or Democrat, you have to have a problem with
the fact that these Members are coming to the floor representing one
thing and doing another.
So they can burn all kinds of Federal jet fuel and taxpayers' expense
all they want to, Mr. Delahunt. And your frustration as it relates to
Afghanistan when we had them on the run and now we have commanders,
need it be NATO commanders or need it be U.S. commanders, saying we
need help. General Abizaid, he had a press conference 48 hours ago,
says, no, troop levels won't be coming down; we are going to still have
140,000 troops in the war in Iraq.
{time} 2130
We have 147,000 troops right now in the war in Iraq, and we will
probably end up having 147,000 troops that are on their fourth and
fifth deployments.
Yesterday in Iraq, we lost four marines, leave alone the countless
number of Iraqi individuals that are not even wearing a uniform, just
trying to make a living, that have lost their lives. We have a policy
here in the U.S. Congress of saying, because the President said stay
the course, and we have a rubber-stamp majority that is not even
exercising Article I, section 1 of the U.S. Constitution.
The lack of oversight and the lack of legislative authority, and this
is what we get. We get individuals coming to the floor making
statements that they know full well are not true on the reality of the
appropriation and the reality of the direction of the policy of this
country. Follow the President. So shall it be written, so shall it be
done. That is not the democracy that the American people woke up early
one Tuesday morning to vote for representation here in this House.
Mr. Ryan, as I yield to you, Democrats, Republicans, Independents,
Green Party, Reform Party, they voted for representation and we are
saying that we have the will and the desire to provide that
representation.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. If you just look at what the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Mica) has said, ``Unfortunately, Congress is not ready to face the
reality of the problem.'' He is talking about airline security. That is
not us. That is not Democrats saying it. Republicans now are saying it,
Newt Gingrich, generals, Republicans, Bill Buckley. I mean, come on,
they are all saying this, that they are not addressing the need of the
problem.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Before you go any further, I have a quick point to
make. I think we should acknowledge, and I would be remiss if we didn't
acknowledge that our friend and colleague from Ohio is here tonight
playing hurt. He is a real trooper. I understand, and maybe Mr. Meek
can elaborate on this, and yes, bring out the crutches. But last night
Tim Ryan and Kendrick Meek, along with a bipartisan group of Members of
this House, played a football
[[Page H6829]]
game against the Capitol Police, and Mr. Ryan went down fairly quickly,
I understand.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. He is yielding to me. Mr. Ryan, it is better
when someone else talks about your great contribution.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I made it to the third quarter.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, even you participated in this fund-
raiser. This is very important. This was a fund-raiser to raise money
for the police officers who lost their lives here protecting the
Capitol, to make sure that their children have an opportunity to go to
college and be all that they can be.
Mr. Ryan got caught up into the moment last night. He played
quarterback. Made a couple of plays, running the ball, bad knee and
all, and ended up hurting his knee. Tonight he comes with not only the
will and the desire, but the dedication. He is standing here on one leg
with crutches. He is here to deliver the message on behalf of the 30-
somethings. We commend your dedication for watching out for not only
the American people but those at the U.S. Capitol. We appreciate your
sacrifice for being here tonight, standing on a bad leg and trying to
recover at the same time.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Meek, let me interrupt one more time.
To be serious for a moment, I want to acknowledge both of you for
participating. I would add that those who are watching should
understand that this is an effort by both Republicans and Democrats for
a tremendous cause. The men and women who serve in the Capitol Police,
as well as the men and women who serve in this Congress, some of whom
are behind us right now, are dedicated professionals. They do an
extraordinary job. It is difficult. In the case of those two Capitol
Police who were killed, what we can do for their family is something
that we all participate in, and we owe a debt of gratitude to them.
Great job.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. If the gentleman would yield, last year we raised
$50,000 for a trust fund for the kids of these families. This year we
raised $30,000, so there will be $80,000. Hopefully we can raise more
in the next couple of years. I am not necessarily saying I will play in
the game next year. I will be happy to write a check, but to make sure
that there is a trust fund there for all of these kids, I think we
should eventually expand it to all of Capitol Police who get killed in
the line of duty protecting us and protecting this Capitol. I think it
is important.
I didn't really want to bring it up, but our coach for the team is
Tom Osborne, the former great coach of the University of Nebraska. He
was our coach, and I was an old quarterback. So if Tom Osborne is my
coach, I am going to try to impress him.
Mr. DELAHUNT. And that is the result.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. This is the result for my trying to impress Tom
Osborne.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If the gentleman would yield, this is
obviously not a playing field I can participate in terms of the debate
or the discussion, given the difference in my stature, and I mean
physical stature, versus yours.
But Mr. Ryan, I will point out as your athletic prowess absolutely
precedes you, given the baseball performance and now the football
performance, perhaps you should become a charitable donor henceforth as
opposed to participant on the field.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. If the gentlewoman would yield, last night's injury
has now relegated me to yoga and golf. So I have changed my future. At
33 years old, I am now limited to different forms of yoga and improving
my golf game. No basketball. No baseball. In fact, last night Mr. Meek,
as he drove me from the field to the locker room and almost to the
hospital, said this morning when he picked me up to take me to the gym,
he said, ``I have your spikes in my car.'' And I said, ``You can burn
them because I am never going to need them again.''
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But we digress.
It is a pleasure to be here with you. I am happy to yield my usual
spot so you can utilize the benefit of the chair.
I want to pick up on some of what Mr. Meek has been talking about
this evening, because for the last 2 weeks or so we have been subjected
as Americans to the onslaught of dialogue on the Republican side of the
aisle in terms of their view of national security and how it is only
through their continued leadership and their continued driving of the
agenda and continuing in the direction that they have taken America
that we will be able to remain safe.
Yet I find it really interesting, and I have an illustrative chart
here that I would like to walk through quickly, that there are people,
very prominent people, people who have the expertise, that know that
nothing could be further from the truth.
In fact, last Monday, which was the anniversary of September 11,
former Governor Tom Kean of New Jersey and former Member of Congress
Lee Hamilton, Republican and Democrat, the co-chairs of the 9/11
Commission, issued a blistering analysis that was published in papers
across the country, but particularly in the Boston Globe, which is your
home paper, Mr. Delahunt, that they reiterated that the report card
that the 9/11 Commission had given the Congress in December included 10
Cs, 12 Ds and 4 Fs. That was a clarion call last December to the
Congress and this Republican leadership.
They were saying look, you are not moving in the right direction. You
have an opportunity to change course. You have an opportunity to make a
commitment to homeland security and to shoring up our national
security; do it. We are the ones that reviewed the gaps, and we
recommended to you how we could close those gaps and you have not done
it.
Here is what they said last Monday. They said, ``What we argued then
is still true now. Americans are safer, but we are not yet safe.'' Then
they walked through what still needed to be done. This chart is
illustrative of what they talked about in this editorial.
First, they said homeland security dollars must be allocated wisely.
They indicated that right now we are not allocating funding on the
basis of risks and vulnerabilities. The Republican leadership is
actually doing it on an earmark basis. They are giving out little pots
of money around the country to make individual Members happy so they
can say I brought home some security dollars for my district instead of
concentrating on the areas where the real risks and vulnerabilities
are.
They went on further and said States and localities need to have
emergency response plans and practice them regularly. The problem is,
there isn't a creation of State and local response plans going on, and
from the moment disaster strikes, all first responders need to know
what to do and who is in charge, and that is not happening.
Third, they called on Congress to give first responders a slice of
the broadcast spectrum that is ideal for emergency communications.
Right now, as you can see, that is not going to happen until 2009. Do
you remember the intraoperability and communication that was talked
about as the problem that occurred on 9/11 when the firefighters and
the police officers and all of the first responders and then the
Intelligence Community, FBI and all of the law enforcement agencies,
couldn't talk to each other because their systems don't communicate
with each other. That still hasn't been fixed, and one of the problems
is that the broadcast spectrum is not going to be turned over until
2009.
Number four, there has not been enough progress on information
sharing among government agencies. There are still turf fights and gaps
in information sharing, especially with State and local authorities. We
have to shut off the turf battles, increase information sharing among
government agencies, and make sure that these entities can talk to each
other.
This can't be about turf anymore. This has to be about making sure
that there is a seamless system, that there is a system through which
information can flow so that when there is danger that is either
imminent or is occurring, there can be the communication that was so
absent on 9/11.
Fifth, FBI reform is moving in the right direction, but far too
slowly. They said you need to speed up FBI reform, improve FBI
technology and analytical capabilities, and lower the workforce
turnover. Those things still have not occurred 5 years later.
[[Page H6830]]
Six, we have taken a special interest in the Privacy and Civil
Liberties Oversight Board which we recommended and the Congress and
created, but we have to protect privacy and civil liberties and make
sure that they function with oversight with the executive branch.
Clearly, Mr. Delahunt and I know better than anybody after our
Judiciary meeting today, there isn't any interest in oversight in terms
of the Republican leadership in this Congress. They have essentially
been willing to cede our legislative authority to the executive branch.
It is shocking. I don't know whether they just didn't take the same
civics classes as we did or whether they are just so trusting of this
Presidency.
Mr. DELAHUNT. If I may offer another theory, another hypothesis. It
is about politics. It is about retaining power.
What happened in the Committee on the Judiciary today was on the
issue of the detainees. The President has come out with a proposal and
that proposal was summarily rejected by three prominent U.S. Senators,
all Republican. One was the chairman of the Armed Services Committee,
John Warner; John McCain, who was imprisoned during Vietnam for years,
who understood what it means to serve his country in the most dire of
circumstances, and exit a hero; and Lindsey Graham, a lawyer who served
in the military as a military lawyer; because they understood that if
the President's proposal is accepted, it will put at risk American
service personnel.
{time} 2145
And what we did today, in effect, was to turn our back and not
listen, not just to them, but more than 40 retired generals, admirals,
men and women who have served this country, including the former Chief
of Staff of the Joint Chiefs, former Secretary of State Colin Powell,
who said this is a mistake in a letter endorsing the proposal to John
McCain.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Because it comes down to this, that this is
another, I think, election year situation. But the bottom line is this:
We opt out of the Geneva Convention, and we make a certain set of rules
to say how military prisoners should be treated, just because if we do
that, we have a certain set of standards, it does not mean other
countries won't opt out, and their standards will be a heck of a lot
lower than our standards.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Ryan, the military doesn't want us to do it.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Nobody wants to us to do it.
Mr. DELAHUNT. The military, because they know that the men and women
that serve will be put at risk, they will be in danger, that is why
they don't want it to happen.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. John McCain, who has actually been through it, the
most well-known political prisoner in our country's history, now, given
the modern media today and the kind of fame that he has generated, says
that this is a bad thing for our soldiers. This isn't about anyone
else's soldiers. This is about our soldiers. You want to be
promilitary? You want to be pro-U.S. soldier? You want to protect our
soldiers? You failed them on body armor. You failed them with a plan to
get out. And now if they get caught, you are going to say there are no
international standards in which we can hold these other countries by,
and you will be able to do anything you want to the American soldiers.
Now, we know there are rogue people, but there are many people who
will get political prisoners and actually abide by the rules. We know
there are some that won't. But to go against John McCain and to go
against a JAG officer like Lindsey Graham, and to go against Mr.
Warner, Chair of the Armed Services Committee, who has been in for
years.
Mr. DELAHUNT. That is inviting danger for the American soldier, the
American service personnel. And by the way, testimony before the Senate
by the senior serving JAG advocate said we don't need it.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And let's be honest here, Mr. Speaker. This is a
joke because this is about 84 percent of America's top national
security experts saying we are losing the war in Iraq. This is about
all these generals that we have been showing night in and night out
saying there is no plan to get out of here, there was a bad plan to get
in, there was a bad plan to start with. There was no plan, bad
information, bad intelligence, nothing was right. Look back at
everything they said about using the oil for reconstruction money,
about being greeted as liberators, about all this nonsense that we
heard before.
This is an opportunity for this administration, Mr. Meek, to try to
change the subject. And all of a sudden we are talking about a few
political prisoners, and it has enormous ramifications.
But the bottom line is this: This administration wants to talk about
anything but the war and the economy. They want to change the subject
anytime they get a chance to. And now we have got this debate about
military prisoners. And I am not saying it is not important, but my
God, you have got millions of people living in poverty. You have got
seniors whom you are threatening with their Medicare. You have got 40
some million people with no health insurance. You have stagnant wages.
You have gas prices going up. You have health care going up. You have
tuition going up. You have poverty rates going up. You have got
veterans' benefits going down. And you want to talk about this one
little sliver to change the subject, and you are coming up with all
these new phrases again, ``Islamofascism'' and all this other stuff.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Let me finish, Mr. Meek, because the bottom line is
this, here is the cost: $8.4 billion per month, $1.9 billion per week
in Iraq, $275 million per day in Iraq, $11.5 million per hour in Iraq.
If this is the legacy of the Bush administration, you know what? If I
was in the White House, I wouldn't want to talk about this either. I
would talk about anything possible other than this fact.
You want to start talking about providing health care for millions of
citizens? You want talk about lower tuition costs? You want to talk
about investing in alternative energy sources to reduce our dependence
on foreign oil? You want to talk about what Mr. Mica wants to do with
airline security and port security? We have got the money. We have got
the money. But we are spending it in a black hole called Iraq.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. If the gentleman will yield, I am going to have
to leave before the hour is over, and I have to take Mr. Ryan since he
laid it out in the field last night. But let me say this very quickly.
The facts are what the facts are. Some individuals say it is what it
is. And the bottom line is we have a rubber-stamp Republican majority.
I do not spend a lot of time, Mr. Speaker, talking about what the
White House should have done and what they did do or whatever the case
may be because I am a Member of Congress; so by my being elected in the
17th Congressional District, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, right next to your
district, by the people of South Florida, they federalized me to come
to the Congress to do what? Carry out Article I, section 1 of the U.S.
Constitution. That means the legislative body has oversight and is the
investigative body. We are not doing any of those.
Let me just take a moment. Today we had a number of visitors to the
Capitol. The American Cancer Society came to the Capitol. A number of
survivors came to the Capitol. They have a walk that is going on right
now outside on the Mall near the reflection pool of the Capitol.
I want to commend them for their efforts for coming here to
Washington, D.C. I want to also say they have a Wall of Hope out there
for those individuals that are survivors and those individuals that
have passed on. I know Ms. Wasserman Schultz had a joint press
conference on breast cancer today. I think it is important that we lift
those individuals up because I know that there are Americans who could
not make it.
My sister is a breast cancer survivor. I went out with Mr. Ryan this
evening to sign the wall for Florida, and I put
[[Page H6831]]
my sister's name in. She couldn't be here. I called her and told her
that I put her name on the wall. I had an opportunity to sign it.
I know that we in the Congress, all of us, are a part of making sure
that we have enough research to be able to look and find ways that
either we can prevent cancer from happening, or find medicines and
procedures that can take away the issue of cancer. I know there is a
commitment by 2015 to eradicate all cancer here in the U.S. So that is
very, very important.
I just wanted to lay that out because I know we wanted to all commend
them. We have serious issues that we are talking about, but at the same
time, Mr. Speaker, we have got to lay out the commitment of those who
did come up here.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Meek. I am glad you touched on
that. I lost both my grandmothers to lung cancer, and, unfortunately,
in America we all know someone who has been touched by cancer, and it
is so incredibly important that Congress redouble its effort and
commitment to funding the research so that in our lifetimes as 30-
somethings, we can see a cure for not just lung cancer, but cancer of
all types in our lifetime and during our congressional careers. So I
know we all are committed to that.
Mr. Delahunt, I think we are wrapping up. Do you have any additional
items to add?
Mr. DELAHUNT. Again, I would say that I think what is being revealed
to the American people is that this administration is really driven by
politics.
We hear now about immigration and border protection, but for 6 years
they have been the majority in this body, they have been the majority
in the Senate and have owned the White House, they had an opportunity
to vote and to support Democratic proposals which would have
strengthened border security. And a comparison, I think, is in order
here right now.
The average number of new Border Patrol agents that were added per
year during the Clinton administration was 642; during the Bush
administration, 411. Immigration fraud cases that were completed in
1995, almost 6,500; in 2003, on the average, 1,300.
And what I find particularly fascinating is those cases that were
filed against employers for hiring illegal immigrants, in 1999 there
were some 417. In 2004, there were three.
The reality is the resources were never provided to enforce the
existing laws that would have served us well, and now we are hearing
about border protection. There is no other conclusion that one can
reasonably reach other than it is great politics in an election year to
energize the so-called base. But it is not fair to the American people
on an issue that really needs to be debated in a respectful and civil
way and analyzed appropriately.
____________________