[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.

                          ____________________