[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18130-18137]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     THE 30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Gohmert). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is

[[Page 18131]]

recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor coming before the 
House once again, and I must say that I am excited about being here 
tonight. It is another great day in this great country of ours.
  And as you know, the 30-something Working Group, we come to the floor 
to share with the American people, not just Democrats but Republicans, 
Independents, those that are thinking about voting, those that have 
been turned off by political processes who are thinking about being 
engaged in the political process once again.
  To those Americans who are not registered to vote, I would encourage 
them to register to vote. They can still vote in the upcoming November 
elections because there is a lot being said on the floor, Mr. Speaker, 
and we talked last night, the 30-something Working Group. We took 2 
hours last night talking about the initiatives that we have with our 
Real Security Plan, talking about the memory and the sacrifice of those 
that gave their lives on 9/11 and those that are still living with the 
effects of 9/11, whether it be losing a family member or a first 
responder or someone that worked in the World Trade Center or was 
around the plane going down in Pennsylvania or the Pentagon here in 
Washington, D.C., those that are still living through it.
  Today we had a resolution on the floor, Mr. Speaker, that dealt with 
addressing the memory of those that lost their lives on 9/11 and things 
that we have to do. The Republican majority found it fit to kind of put 
in a resolution about some things that they thought that they 
accomplished as it relates to making America safer. Some of that I join 
with them on as an American and as a Member of Congress, but a lot of 
it has not been achieved.

                              {time}  2200

  We have the 9/11 Commission Report that came out that said that we 
have to not only inspect 100 percent of cargo containers that are on 
ships and 100 percent of those cargo containers that go in the bellies 
of airplanes that are flying throughout the United States of America, 
it is still not accomplished today. We still have a dismal amount of 
Border Patrol officers to protect American borders. Democrats, we have 
asked for 2,000 Border Patrol officers; the President's budget request 
to this Congress was only 215 or 216 Border Patrol officers.
  Now, the Republican majority can come to the floor night after night, 
day after day, do 5-minute speeches, 1-minute speeches, or take a 
special order and talk a good game. But I used to be a football player, 
Mr. Speaker, I played for Florida A&M Rattlers. I was an outside 
linebacker. And before the game, you would read all about what the 
other team is saying and all of the talking and taunting. And then you 
have folks that tailgate before the game, and the bus would roll in and 
they would talk about what they are going to do to us, and then the 
coach would talk about how better the other team is. But it really 
doesn't count until that whistle blows and that kickoff takes place and 
that you have an opportunity to get out there and hit somebody. And 
when you hit somebody and when you run the ball down the field and you 
end up winning the game, all of that talk was for naught.
  But what is unfortunate about this situation, even though I use that 
analogy, Mr. Speaker, this is not a game, this is for real. This is 
flesh and blood. This is flesh and blood. And the bottom line is, is 
that one can come to the floor and talk about, well, you know, 
Democrats and this, that, and the other, and they are holding us back. 
What are we holding the Republican majority back from, Mr. Speaker? 
That is what I want to know. That is the prevailing question here.
  The bottom line, the Republicans in this House have been in this 
control for double digit years. So who is holding them back? Now, let's 
talk a little bit about control. I want to make sure that every Member 
understands what control and majority means.
  The majority means that any amendment, any bill, any appropriations 
that you want funded will be funded because you are in the majority. 
You have more numbers than the Democrats do at this particular time in 
the House.
  Why are the American people saying that they want change? Why are the 
American people saying that they want to move in a new direction? They 
want to move in a new direction because they want accountability. They 
want oversight. They want Article I, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution 
to be adhered to. They want to make sure that their vote counts here in 
the U.S. House of Representatives. Right now, it is just a lot of talk. 
And I can tell you, as a Member of the House and someone that studies 
what happens here on this floor and what does not happen here on this 
floor, I feel it is my obligation not as a Member of Congress but as an 
American to be able to come to this floor and say that it is just not 
happening.
  We can talk about the facts, and like we do every night we talk about 
the facts. We have the vote number, down to the vote number when we 
start talking about border protection. No one can come on this floor in 
the Republican majority side and say that we have done an outstanding 
job as it relates to protecting our borders, period, dot. They cannot 
because they have not done it, Mr. Speaker, and they know it.
  So I guess spending the time of 9/11, the fifth anniversary, coming 
to the floor, having control of a resolution dealing with the issue on 
9/11, you can put anything that you want to put in it because you have 
the majority. It doesn't necessarily mean that it is true. And if the 
Americans want to move in a new direction, they will have an 
opportunity. And as we start looking at this whole piece on a new 
direction and real security, you go on HouseDemocrats.gov. I challenge 
the Republican majority to go on HouseDemocrats.gov, I challenge the 
Republicans to pick up the Democrats' bill here on this floor that 
fully implements the 9/11 recommendations. I ask the Republicans to do 
that, because it was a bipartisan commission that is respected by this 
whole country, had a Republican chair and a Democratic vice chair, and 
had former Members of Congress, members of the Intelligence Committee, 
the National Security Director come before them and the President of 
these United States come before them, 9/11 survivors come before them, 
clandestine organizations that we have within the Federal Government 
come before them. We have a number of individuals that put forth 
testimony, frontline first responders that came before them, 
individuals in academia who have been looking at this issue of homeland 
security come before them, and they put forth this document called the 
9/11 Report, which was a book. Americans can go out to Barnes and Noble 
or what have you and go out and buy it, go on Yahoo and buy it. It was 
ready and accessible, and a number of Americans picked up and read it. 
And in that book, in that text and body: Safety for America.
  What do we do in a democracy when the Congress put forth in the 
Commission to find out what we need to do? We try to implement at least 
95 percent or 100 percent of it. But as I stand here today, Mr. 
Speaker, very little of that has been implemented as it relates to real 
security.
  The Brits ended up intercepting a plot as relates to liquid 
explosives. Just today, Mr. Speaker, I am the ranking member of the 
Oversight Committee on Homeland Security, Management Integration and 
Oversight, and I must say that that in that committee the Under 
Secretary said, well, we are now starting to do tests as it relates to 
liquid explosives, 5 years later, Mr. Speaker. Foot dragging process. 
And we start talking about the whole issue of how do we get technology 
involved and how do we get industry involved in helping us resolve 
threats to the United States, 5 years later.
  Do you know why the Department of Homeland Security is foot dragging 
on this issue? It is the fact that they don't have Members of Congress 
that are willing to call them out on the carpet and say that we are 
willing t protect Americans now. We don't want to wait to be a Monday 
morning quarterback. Mr. Ryan, we don't want to talk about,

[[Page 18132]]

well, you know, we could have, should have done it, and then we have 
another commission, it may not be named 9/11, it may be 10/11 that will 
come forth with a report saying that we found the Department of 
Homeland Security didn't prioritize the issue on liquid explosives 
because they felt that there were other threats that are out there.
  Well, the bottom line is this: The oversight is not happening, and 
this Republican Congress has rubber stamped everything that President 
Bush has handed down and said, so shall it be written, so shall it be 
done. Let's do it the way you originally wrote it; we are not going to 
ask any questions, you are the President of the United States. Forget 
about our legislative responsibilities, forget about oversight, and 
forget about moving in a new direction.
  The bottom line is this. The leader took this podium on this floor 
here today down in the well and said, if you really want to honor those 
individuals that have lost their lives on 9/11, if you want to honor 
those first responders, if you want to honor every American that is 
fighting abroad as it relates to Afghanistan and the war in Iraq, then 
implement what the 9/11 Commission called for.
  We have got American passengers, we have individuals, law-abiding 
citizens taking off shoes, giving up hand sanitizer, gulping down water 
before they get through security screening; meanwhile, containers 
unchecked, unchecked, there can be 10,000 explosives in the container. 
We would never know it because we haven't prioritized. We haven't said 
that we are willing to implement what the 9/11 Commission called for. I 
don't want to give the 9/11 Commission an opportunity to say, we told 
the Congress to do it and they didn't do it. I wish they would say we 
told the Republican majority to do it and they didn't do it.
  So, one can get on the floor and say all they have to say, but the 
facts are this. The fact is that they have not implemented the 9/11 
Commission Report. They have not implemented making sure that we go 
beyond 6 percent of containers that are going throughout the United 
States of America on 18-wheelers. I used to be a State trooper. They 
move throughout this country, in the heartland of this country, into 
the ports of major cities, and they are unchecked. I don't want to be 
able to say I told you so. I want to see it implemented.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I said last night, Mr. Ryan, I am done with asking 
the Republican majority to do the right thing. They have had double 
digit years to do it. They don't have the will nor the desire to do it. 
But they do have the will to come to the floor, Mr. Ryan, and to try to 
say, well, you know, we are doing all we can and the Democrats are 
holding us back. How can we hold the Republican majority back from 
securing America? That is not possible when you are in the minority.
  The bottom line is, is that Republicans, Independents, Democrats, 
those that are thinking about voting, those that have not voted in a 
number of years will show up at the polls to put this country in a new 
direction. If you allow this kind of landslide policy making, this K 
Street Project policy making, pay-to-play, here on this floor, then we 
are going to find ourselves in a dismal situation.
  I don't have to say it. Republicans are saying it, Independents are 
saying it, the media is saying it as you pick up the paper, as you turn 
on the news. So, you know, it is not like this is a Democrat-Republican 
issue. I will go ahead and give the benefit of the doubt, Mr. Speaker, 
and say that there are some Republicans that see it the way that we see 
it on this side of the aisle that we need to do better by the American 
people. But, guess what, they are not in the majority; they are not in 
the leadership of the American Congress. They are not the individuals 
that move policy through this process. We have the will and the desire 
to work in a bipartisan way if given the opportunity to make sure that 
we honor our member and women that have served in the military, that 
are now serving right now. There are men and women that have sand in 
their teeth.
  Mr. Ryan and I have been to Iraq, I have been to Afghanistan, I have 
been in the Middle East talking to these leaders, I have been to 
Central Command. I have been there in Qatar, and I have talked to these 
individuals, and they are dedicated and they have the will and the 
desire to follow up. But when we have a Secretary of Defense that is 
saying that he is going to fire the next person that starts talking 
about how do we move out of Iraq and how do we replace the force there 
to be able to empower the Iraqi people, I have a problem with that. And 
the only reason why Secretary Rumsfeld is not front and center in front 
of the Armed Services Committee is the fact that Republicans have 
control of this House; otherwise, there will be Article I, Section 1 of 
the U.S. Constitution that is blood, sweat, and tears that are on that 
Constitution right now that he will be front and center making a 
statement like that. The Secretary of Defense of the United States of 
America said, if one other person comes to him talking about how are we 
going to have this transfer of power, how are we going to draw down and 
redeploy U.S. troops, that they are going to be fired. That is not a 
democracy, that is kingdom politics, Mr. Speaker. And I will tell you 
this. The only people that can bring the kind of paradigm shift that we 
need in America right now is the American people. We can't count on the 
Republican Congress to do it. They have already shown that they cannot 
do it.
  The attacks on U.S. troops are well above 700 attacks a week and 
climbing. Al Qaeda is sending more troops, more individuals to Iraq to 
train to carry out terror throughout the globe. And the bottom line is, 
the President said some sort of statement yesterday. Well, you know, if 
we were to redeploy troops or we were to leave Iraq, then they will 
follow us to the United States.
  Well, you know something? We have this big department that is called 
the Department of Homeland Security that is supposed to protect 
Americans. And I can tell you this, under a Democratic controlled 
Congress we have already said within the 100 hours that full 
implementation of the 9/11 Commission Report will be implemented by 
this House and the Senate. We have already said it and we will do it, 
just like we balanced the budget without one Republican vote.

                              {time}  2215

  Mr. Speaker, the facts are on this side of the aisle. The will and 
the desire is on this side of the aisle. I am excited. I thank God that 
He preserved life long enough for me to make it here tonight to be able 
to share the sentiments on behalf of those that are on the National 
Security Committee, on behalf of U.S. troops in Afghanistan right now 
that are saying, ``We need help.'' On behalf of those veterans, 
individuals who can't even walk straight right now, individuals that 
are still going through reflection, or memorizing what they went 
through in past conflicts. Those individuals in the PFWs, those 
individuals that possess what this country is all about and allowed us 
to salute one flag. On behalf of them, Mr. Speaker, I come tonight with 
the truth, to say we stand up for those individuals and for those 
Americans that prayed up our troops over the years: World War I, World 
War II. You name it. Korea. You name it. Grenada. You name it. Somalia. 
You name it. Gulf War I. You name it. We come to the floor on behalf of 
those individuals, those individuals who are veterans right now that 
have to wait twice a month for the veterans' assistance center to open, 
for the VA clinic to open in their rural America area, for those 
individuals that have to wait 4 months to be able to see an 
ophthalmologist, who served our country. We come to the floor for them. 
We come to the floor on behalf of those families that are praying for 
their loved ones that are in harm's way right now and making sure that 
we don't allow their sacrifice and their commitment to go to the side 
because someone came to the floor of the House to say that, Oh, well, 
yeah, we have al Qaeda and this, that and the other. We have to worry 
about those Democrats over there.

[[Page 18133]]

  You don't need to worry about us, Republican majority. You need to 
worry about the American people and what they think and what they feel. 
And when they show up on Tuesday, come this November, they will let you 
know how they feel. They no longer want a rubber-stamp Congress. They 
want a Congress that is going to legislate and oversight on behalf of 
the American people, regardless of who they may be.
  And so, Mr. Speaker, I am excited about being here tonight. I think I 
have said that about three times. I think it is important that we 
continue to come to the floor and give validation to those individuals 
that need the representation, if they are in our districts or not. They 
are Americans and they deserve it.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I appreciate the gentleman's passion and want to 
thank you for inviting me to be down here with you again.
  I think what you are trying to say is that this Congress, this 
President, has really put us and the American people in a lose-lose 
situation. Good Presidents and a good Congress do not put the American 
people and their military operation in a lose-lose situation. And now 
they have reverted back to just saying, Democrats don't care about 
national security. Democrats are more in favor of protecting the 
terrorists. Just name calling. It is like you are on the playground 
again.
  The thing that we have to look at is the record. The record does not 
lie. And what the generals are telling the civilian side what to do and 
the civilian side not listening, as you expressed earlier. But here is 
what we are hearing from former generals who, once they get out, can 
all of a sudden start speaking the truth. Like General Shinseki tried 
to say to Rumsfeld, ``You've got to send in a few hundred thousand 
troops.'' And Secretary Rumsfeld, Mr. Speaker, said, ``No, no, no. 
Don't worry. We can do this on the cheap.'' Rumsfeld was wrong and 
Shinseki all of a sudden kind of disappears. Look what is happening 
now.
  Lieutenant General Newbold: ``What we are living with now is the 
consequences of successive policy failures.'' This man was the top 
operations officer for the Joint Chiefs, commanding general for the 
First Marine Division, Legion of Merit Navy and Marine Corps 
commendation medal.
  How about General Eaton: ``2\1/2\ more years of that leadership was 
too long for my Nation, for my Army and for my family.''
  These are generals.
  How about General Riggs: ``They only need the military advice when it 
satisfies their agenda.''
  I think what we want to do, Mr. Speaker, is get out of the politics 
and let's start solving problems. Seven hundred thousand people per 
Congressal district vote for us to come down here and fix problems, not 
to play politics with what is going on. And this has been all politics, 
all the time, from this administration. It doesn't matter if what they 
are saying is even remotely close to being based in reality. It doesn't 
matter what the facts on the ground are. You can sit here and say, the 
Democrats this and the Democrats that.
  You're in charge of the House, the Senate and the White House. Don't 
go blame the minority party for your failures. That is what has 
happened here. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Ryan.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. The debate coming out of D.C. and the old Potomac 
two-step is, ``We'll blame the Democrats.'' What are you going to blame 
the Democrats for? We have bills sitting in committee. No one has given 
them even one hearing in a committee. We have got discharge petitions 
sitting over here for veterans benefits and all kinds of other things. 
They never see the light of day. We are the minority party. You can't 
blame us. You can try, but you can't blame us. Take responsibility for 
your actions. And if you solve problems, the American people would 
return you back. But you haven't.
  Just look. The failure to execute basic governmental programs. Look 
at homeland security. Look at Katrina. Look at the war. You got Newt 
Gingrich, the father of the Republican revolution in 1994, basically 
saying, ``Vote the Republicans out.'' Here is what Speaker Gingrich 
said in the Wall Street Journal just a couple of days ago. Just 
consider the following, he says:
  ``Osama bin Laden is still at large. Afghanistan is still insecure. 
Iraq is still violent. North Korea and Iran still building nuclear 
weapons and missiles. Terrorist recruiting still occurring in the U.S., 
Canada, Great Britain and across the planet.''
  This is not a Democrat. This is someone who cares about his country 
and saying, ``We may even disagree on how to fix the problem, but can 
we please admit that we have got some serious problems in 2006 in the 
United States of America? We have a government that doesn't work 
because it thinks the government is built on a concept of an economy 
that was 1950. It doesn't work.'' This is from a few months ago, about 
the Republican majority.
  ``They are seen by the country as being in charge of a government 
that can't function.''
  We don't need to make this up. We don't need to create this. This is 
not fiction. This is about what is happening here. We come down here, 
Mr. Speaker, because we want to start solving these problems. When we 
are not included in the debate, you are basically saying half of the 
country has no solutions. Well, we have solutions. When we get in 
charge next year, we are going to show the American people our ability 
to govern. We are not trying to obstruct. We couldn't even obstruct if 
we wanted to. All we are saying is, every single aspect of the 
neoconservative political agenda has been implemented and it is not 
benefiting the American people.
  Look at your energy costs. Look at your health care costs. Look at 
your tuition costs. Look at your tax burden. Look at the inefficiency 
of government. Look at how your government responds to natural 
disasters. Look how your government handles its foreign policy. Look at 
the prewar plan. When you have a problem with your political system and 
your leadership, when you have the Secretary of Defense. Just think 
about this. There is a problem when the Secretary of Defense wants to 
invade a country and doesn't want anyone around him talking about how 
we are going to get out once the war is over. We have got the best 
military machine the planet has ever seen. We knew we were going to 
march right to Baghdad. We didn't know it was going to be as quick as 
it was but we knew it would be quick. Certainly the Iraqis weren't 
going to be able to stop us. And then the Secretary of Defense, used to 
be called the Secretary of War, the same position. But the Secretary of 
Defense tells everyone around him that we're not allowed to talk about 
a postwar plan.
  What? Mr. Speaker, that is crazy.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I have to come in at this point.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Come in.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. You are making a great point, but I just have to 
come in at this point.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Supplement.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is over at the 
Department of Defense, it is almost like having what they call a 
501(c)(3), kind of a community group that goes out and does good on 
behalf of the community. You go out and you pick board members to be on 
your board of this 501(c)(3). Let's just say it is the Boys Club or the 
Girls Club of America. You are the chairman of the board. You are 
saying, ``I'm going to get everyone that says yes and agrees with me. I 
don't want anyone to disagree with me.'' We do know for any great 
organization that you need individuals that are going to question your 
original thoughts.
  What we have now in America, in the Department of Defense and in this 
government, this Federal Government of ours, is a ``yes'' board of 
directors. The U.S. Congress, the Republican majority, is a ``yes'' 
board. They are a rubber-stamp board. They do anything and everything 
the President of the United States says, does, or whoever his advisers 
may say we should do.

[[Page 18134]]

  But what is unfortunate is the fact that we are the superpower of the 
world and we are the United States of America. This is not the Boys and 
Girls Club. This is not One-Two-Three 501(c)(3), we want to do good for 
you. This is national security. This is protecting women and children. 
This is making sure that our troops that have gone in past conflicts, 
that their memory is not stepped upon. This is making sure that 
individuals have health care. This is making sure that small businesses 
are able to provide health care. This is making sure that we balance 
the budget. This is not a 501(c)(3). This is the government of the 
United States of America.
  And when you have the Secretary of Defense saying, ``If anyone comes 
to me that doesn't believe in what I believe in, you can get out of 
here. If you want to talk about an exit strategy or redeployment of 
troops in Iraq, you can't be around me. You're fired.'' And all you 
hear is cricket sounds from the Republican majority. Quiet. No one is 
saying anything. No one is doing anything. No one called a hearing. No 
one called the Secretary to the United States Congress to say, ``Excuse 
me, Mr. Secretary. Wait a minute. I heard you give speeches saying that 
whatever the men and women need and the commanders need on the ground 
in Iraq, that you're here to hear their call. You want to hear from 
them.''
  The President of these United States, the Commander in Chief, said, 
``Whatever our commanders tell us on the ground or over at the 
Pentagon, we're here to take on their recommendations.''
  But, Mr. Speaker, things have gotten so bold now, because no one is 
here to question kingdom politics here in Washington, D.C. So shall it 
be written, so shall it be done politics from the White House and from 
the Pentagon. And so that the Secretary of Defense feels so confident 
that he can publicly say, anyone who has anything to say about 
redeployment of troops in the Pentagon, they are gone. That is not a 
democracy. That is a rubber-stamp democracy.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I want to share a couple of other of these quotes 
that support what you are saying. Here is from General Batiste: 
``Rumsfeld and his team turned what should have been a deliberate 
victory in Iraq into a prolonged challenge.''
  General Zinni: ``We are paying the price for the lack of credible 
planning or the lack of a plan. Ten years' worth of planning were 
thrown away.''
  How about General Swannack: ``I do not believe Secretary Rumsfeld is 
the right person to fight that war based on his absolute failures in 
managing the war against Saddam in Iraq.'' That was from the New York 
Times in April. And on and on and on.
  But here is the point I want to make before we yield to our other 
good friend from Florida about just not listening and not even 
accepting facts presented by nonpartisan people.

                              {time}  2230

  The 9/11 Commission was a bipartisan group that said you need to 
implement these. After months and months of study on what happened on 
9/11, this is what you need to implement. And it has not been done.
  And then the Senate Intelligence Committee comes out and says there 
was no tie between Saddam and al Qaeda, and yet the administration goes 
out and continues to perpetuate falsehoods. Excuse me, but, I mean, 
come on. It was the Senate Intelligence Committee report, and the 
Senate is controlled by Republicans. That was basically a Republican 
report and a nonpartisan report, and yet they continue to just go on 
and say things that just don't match with reality.
  I yield to my friend from Florida.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Well, thank you, Mr. Ryan. It is wonderful to 
be here again with both of you, as we take the floor each night to talk 
to our colleagues and any Americans that might be within the sound of 
our voices.
  Last night, we had the opportunity to talk about and reflect upon 
September 11 and its commemoration, and we had a commemoration of sorts 
on the floor this evening, Mr. Ryan and Mr. Meek. I thought it was 
really interesting that the majority, Republican majority, felt it 
necessary to politicize what should have been a solemn and 
commemorative event, and a solemn and commemorative resolution with 
their ra-ra stuff on some of the most controversial legislation that 
has come off this floor related to so-called national security.
  And on Monday, when we were in our home communities, I was in south 
Florida with our first responders in my community. And I told you both 
last night that again and again all day on Monday people asked me, 
well, Debbie, are we safer than we were 5 years ago? And, you know, 
that was such an incredibly difficult question to field because you 
want to tell them, yes, we are safer. We are elected officials, and the 
public puts their trust in us, and it is our job to be able to 
unequivocally say, yes, we are safer. But here is the rhetorical 
questions I will ask you. Have we captured Osama bin Laden? Have we 
smoked out the terrorists, as the President promised? Three years after 
``mission accomplished,'' do we even know what the mission is? A year 
after the last throes of the insurgency in Iraq, are we closer to the 
date that our troops can come home? Does the President still want the 
insurgents to ``bring it on?''
  If you look at the point shortly after we toppled the Taliban in 
Afghanistan, we have made one misstep after another after another. I 
mean, repeatedly. I would be hard-pressed to think of a way in which 
the aftermath of September 11 and the last 5 years could have been 
handled worse than it has been. I mean, are we truly resting the sum 
total of our national security on whether we take our shoes off when we 
go through the magnetometer at the airport, or whether we check our 
Coke at the door?
  I mean, if you asked Americans, as we walked down a city block, what 
they could put their arms around and tangibly identify as the national 
security steps we have taken, that is what most people would name.
  Basically, the war on terror is a junkyard of missed opportunities. 
That is exactly what we have been doing since 9/11, squandering 
opportunity. And last night, Mr. Meek, we talked about how unified and 
patriotic the country felt and our citizens felt after 9/11. You never 
had a less partisan environment or a more unified American environment 
than the hours and days after 9/11, and weeks and months.
  In that whole year following 9/11, people drove around and you had 
American flags on either side of every car, and this President and this 
Republican majority squandered those opportunities to really bring the 
country together by adopting the bipartisan recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission, which is why that commission was created, in spite of the 
President's objections, who didn't want the 9/11 Commission to even 
exist in the first place.
  But then, finally, he really had to grudgingly agree he would be 
supportive of it. And to this day, in 2006, September 13, 2006, we have 
not fully implemented it. We have not even come close to implementing 
their recommendations. Squandered and missed opportunities. It is just 
disgusting.
  So no, sadly, the answer I had to give my constituents was, well, we 
are somewhat safer. We are safer in spots, but there are major, major 
gaps. And it doesn't have to be that way, Mr. Meek. It really doesn't.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. If I may inject here, the last attack, the attack 
prior to 9/11, was in 1993. This is a very patient group. Just because 
we haven't been hit yet does not mean we are executing the plan 
properly. And to just dismiss the 9/11 report and continue down the 
road of ignoring what the experts are telling us from Iraq and from 
everything else puts us in a certain amount of danger.
  And you have the charts that we have shown night after night that are 
on our Web site, housedemocrats.gov/30something, night in and night 
out, about the ports and the amount of ships coming in and cargo that 
are coming in that are not checked, Mr. Meek. You guys are in Florida, 
we have Lake Erie in Ohio. I mean, this country is surrounded by cargo 
coming in and

[[Page 18135]]

out of our ports, for us not to check it all.
  And then, when you think about what we are spending in Iraq, $2 
billion a week, $8 billion a month, and what we could do with that 
money on addressing the issue of our ports, on our homeland security, 
on our first responders, on making sure everyone has the proper radios 
and the proper equipment to coordinate these kind of things; what we 
could do with technology at the borders, at our airports, the retinal 
scans, and all kinds of things that could spring up and even have some 
economic stimulus.
  What economic stimulus are we getting out of Iraq right now? Nothing. 
Nothing. It is like putting money and just flushing it. And so I think 
it is time, and I yield to my friend, but I think it is time that we 
start straightening this out.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I will just jump in on one thing. As you watch 
what they are doing unfold, because, again, we always remind people we 
don't have any control over this process right now. Hopefully, after 
November 7, we will be given that opportunity, because the American 
people, we know, want a new direction. But, Mr. Meek, I don't know if 
you had a chance to read one of our papers in south Florida, the Sun 
Sentinel, the other day, but one of the Members in our delegation on 
the Republican side actually said the war in Iraq is over. He was 
actually quoted as saying the war in Iraq is over and that we won the 
war, and that now we are fighting a faceless enemy. Which is absolutely 
true, we are fighting a faceless enemy.
  But I was flying here and reading the newspaper, reading that 
article, and wondering what planet this person was on and whether there 
an alternate universe he was observing. Because anyone that we know, no 
matter what their party affiliation, clearly recognizes that we are at 
war. This is called the war in Iraq. This is major, major conflict, 
where more than 2,600 troops have been killed. Ask the families of 
those troops whether they think the war is over. How about the wounded, 
the more than 20,000 wounded, whether they think the war is over and we 
won.
  If that is the reality that our Republican colleagues are operating 
under, no wonder they are taking us in the direction that we are going 
in.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And let us look at the colossal failure that has 
been made here. We have now, because of the decimation in Iraq and the 
inability of a post-war plan that Rumsfeld didn't want anyone to talk 
about, and not propping up some government there to combat Iran, now 
you have Iran as the major player in this region. And they are talking 
about nuclear weapons, they are funding terrorists through the back 
door in Iraq through Hamas. Through all of the terrorist organizations 
in the Middle East, Iran is the one stoking this fire.
  We have put ourselves in such a position of weakness. Now, we have 
troops there and troops in Afghanistan, too, so what if something else 
happens? And I think it is interesting, and our ranking member on the 
Armed Services Committee, Mr. Skelton, has been talking about this for 
a long time, and it is difficult to even fathom this, but one-half of 
all Army units, deployed and nondeployed, Active and Reserve, one-half 
of all Army units received the lowest readiness rating any fully formed 
unit can receive, with a decline in levels that haven't been seen since 
Vietnam.
  So our army is not ready. Not only are we in a quagmire in Iraq, we 
have problems in Afghanistan, the poppy crop is growing like gang 
busters, it is a major parts of their underground economy that is going 
to the terrorists, now our army is not meeting the readiness 
capabilities in case something else happens.
  And we are in a position of weakness with China because we are 
borrowing billions of dollars from them, so how do you negotiate with 
all these people from a position of weakness? You can't. It has been 
America that has always balanced the budgets so we didn't have to 
borrow money from people; very selective in our foreign policy; making 
sure we had friends and allies. All down the tubes in one presidency.
  Yield to my friend.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, I don't give the President total 
credit for all of this. He couldn't do it by himself. You have to have 
a rubber stamp Congress to give you full power, full power to be able 
to take the country down the track it has gone down. And the bottom 
line is that a Republican majority, from the leadership on down to the 
newly elected member of the Republican conference, has to take credit 
for giving the President the kind of power that he has right now.
  We are fighting wars abroad for ``democracy,'' when here at home we 
don't celebrate that very democracy that so many people speak of. We 
have individuals that are on their third and fourth deployment. I am on 
the Armed Services Committee, so I get the reports. I get the letters 
from my constituents saying my husband, my wife, my mother, my dad, my 
niece, my uncle, my next-door neighbor is on his way back to Iraq 
again. Because we went alone. We didn't go with a true coalition.
  So I think it would be hard, if I was a part of the Republican 
majority, to try to muster up some talking points for the floor right 
now; to be able to say, well, okay, some of this stuff is not 
believable, so let's try to attack some members of the Democratic 
caucus. Let's try to muster up and embellish a ``record'' on possibly 
being weak on terrorism or being weak on national security. That's 
where the Republican majority is now. Mr. Speaker, they are gasping for 
political air right now.
  But you know what is so important about this issue and this 
discussion about national security is that it is supposed to be 
nonpolitical. And, unfortunately, it is. And that is because the 
majority hasn't allowed bipartisanship in this House for so many years, 
and so they can hang it around their neck and say it is our war. It is 
our failure as it relates to national security and border security. 
Don't act like it is a crisis right now. You allowed it to happen under 
your watch. You have been the rubber stamp Congress.
  Now, Mr. Ryan and Ms. Wasserman Schultz, let me just tell you what 
the rubber stamp Congress has accomplished borrowing $1.05 trillion 
from foreign nations in 4 years. In more than 224 years of this 
country's history, with 42 presidents. $1.01 trillion they were able to 
borrow in 4 years, and this Republican Congress and the President has 
allowed that to happen.
  These are the countries here that own a part of the American apple 
pie: Japan, China, the U.K., the Caribbean, Taiwan, Germany, and OPEC 
nations. You know, this whole oil thing that we will talk about in a 
minute. Korea and Canada. They all have their hands in the pockets of 
the U.S. taxpayers, not because of the U.S. taxpayers but because of 
the Republican majority's out-of-control spending.
  Oil companies? Oh, wow. At this time in history, when they unearth 
what happened under this Republican majority and this Presidency, they 
will see these record breaking profits. There was a meeting in the 
White House, I have the article to prove it, and I talk about it all 
time. It was a special meeting that took place in the White House, and 
the Vice President's aides and all met. And then the policymakers came 
here to the Congress, to the rubber stamp Congress.
  Now, let me set this up here, because we believe in the 30-something 
Working Group, in third-party validators. Washington Post, Wednesday, 
November 16, 2005, White House document shows that executives from big 
oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's Energy Task Force in 
2001, something long expected by environmentalists but denied as 
recently as last week by the White House. Last week, industry officials 
testified before Congress. Document obtained by the Post on November 
2005 shows that officials from Exxon Mobil, Phillips, Shell Oil 
Companies, and BP of America met in the White House complex with Cheney 
aides to develop a national energy policy, parts of which became law, 
and parts of which are still being debated in Congress.

                              {time}  2245

  That was 2001, Mr. Speaker. Look what happened:

[[Page 18136]]

  2002, $34 billion, record-breaking profits; 2003, $53 billion; 2004, 
$84 billion; 2005, $113 billion in profits for oil companies. 
Meanwhile, average Americans are spending through the nose and trying 
to make it to work and to drop their kids off.
  Look what happened here. This is what happened under the Republican 
majority and a rubber stamp Congress. So shall it be written and so 
shall it be done.
  E-85, we talk about alternative fuels, flex vehicles. Every magazine 
I open talks about flex vehicles. Here is the bottom line. The 
Republican Congress have allowed these oil companies to be able to do 
anything they want to do when they want to do it. This is an actual 
pump here at an Exxon-Mobil station. It says you cannot use your Mobil 
credit card to buy E-85. Meanwhile, we can continue to feed off the 
Saudi Arabian Middle East, what got us in this thing in the first place 
policies. You can use your oil card there. You can buy a bag of chips, 
you can buy a carton cigarettes, but E-85 that is produced in the 
Midwest versus the Middle East, you cannot use your Mobil credit card 
for that.
  And on retirement packages, and I don't know very much about Lee 
Raymond, but the bottom line is he is a retired executive from Exxon-
Mobil with a $398 million retirement package and a $2 million tax 
break. This is what happens with a Republican majority.
  Again, the Republican majority rubber stamp, don't worry about 
balancing the budget. Democrats, we tried to balance the budget. We 
have done it before. We have tried to do it under this Republican 
majority. Not one Republican vote to balance the budget on rollcall 
vote 87, March 17, 2005.
  Ranking Member Spratt and the Budget Committee put it forth again. 
Failed. Not one Republican vote on rollcall vote 91 in 2004. Their will 
and desire is not there. The American people deserve balance.
  Minimum wage. Yes, there was some bill that came up before we left 
for the break to talk about minimum wage, a bill that the Republican 
majority knew that the Senate would not take up and would never make it 
to the President's desk. But because we were hammering them on it, they 
said let's pass this. They added all kinds of stuff. It is called the 
Potomac two-step.
  This chart, the bottom line is these are not minimum wage increases, 
these are increases for Members of Congress. This is our pay. This is 
what we make. Oh, look at them. Since 1997 there hasn't been an 
increase in the minimum wage, and you not a minimum wage worker right 
now, and I am not talking to the Members of Congress, I am talking to 
the American people, the bottom line is if the minimum wage goes up, 
and that means if you are a salaried worker, then your wages will go 
up. But the bottom line is that it is a fact that the Republican 
Congress has said not over our dead body. We are going to get our 
increase, but we are not going to give the American people a minimum 
wage increase. It goes on and on and on.
  I am going to close with this, the Prime Minister of Iraq and the 
President of Iran. Mr. Delahunt brought this picture out last night. I 
don't care whichever way you cut, $300 billion of spending, over 2,000 
troops, thousands and thousands of American troops injured, here in 
Washington, D.C. ``stay the course,'' no plan.
  The Secretary of Defense says if you talk about or say anything about 
redeployment of troops or withdrawing from Iraq, you are fired. No 
question from the Congress, no response from the Congress. The 
Secretary of Defense is not called to the Hill immediately. The 
Republican Congress, what are they saying? They are saying nothing, Mr. 
Speaker. So accountability is not there. They are embracing and guess 
what, this is a la the U.S. taxpayer through the Republican majority 
because of a lack of diplomacy and a lack of plan and going to a war of 
choice versus after Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and giving those 
troops in Afghanistan the support they need.
  So Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Ryan, I rest my case. The bottom line 
is that was not a message for Democrats or Republicans. It was not a 
message for Independents or the Green Party or other party 
affiliations. That is a message for Americans. The bottom line is 
whatever you may feel, if you are a member of the Republican Executive 
Committee or you have always voted Republican or you always voted 
Independent, you have to have issues with what the facts are.
  I yield to Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. I want to pick up on the litany of 
issues you were going through because we need to zero in on how we make 
ourselves safer because the other side is going to spend a lot of time 
and they are spending a lot of time claiming they are the party of 
national security and they are the ones that need to be entrusted to 
keep us safe.
  The last time I checked, that is who was in charge of keeping us 
safe, and they are not doing such a hot job. Mr. Ryan talked about how 
we like to use third party validators here. We absolutely do. I am 
going to use a third-party validator of Governor Kean, former Governor 
Kean of New Jersey who co-chaired the bipartisan 9/11 Commission and 
Lee Hamilton, a former well-respected Democratic Congressman who was 
the other co-chair of the 9/11 Commission. Here is what they said on 
Monday, September 11, 2006. ``As we mark the fifth anniversary of the 
terrorist attacks, Americans ask: Are we safer? Two years ago, the 9/11 
Commission found that our government failed in its duty to protect us. 
The commission, which the two of us led, made 41 recommendations to 
ensure that this Nation does everything possible to protect its people.
  ``Many of our recommendations, including those to reorganize the 
intelligence community, were written into law. Yet no law is self-
executing. Implementation is often the harder step.''
  We know that implementation is the job of the Congress. The 9/11 
Commission couldn't recommend things into thin air and suddenly they 
would happen. They have to be adopted into law and funded.
  They continued, ``We issued a report card on our recommendations in 
December. It included 10 Cs, 12 Ds, and 4 Fs. What we argued then,'' 
and this was September 11, 2006, 2 days ago, ``is still true now: 
Americans are safer, but we are not yet safe.
  ``So what do we need to do?'' This is their words, not ours.
  ``First, homeland security dollars must be allocated wisely. Right 
now, those funds are spread around like revenue-sharing projects.'' We 
are basically using the opportunity to spend money on homeland security 
for turkeys, we used to call them in Florida. We call them earmarks 
here. That means little itty-bitty projects, and every Member knows 
that there are potential security targets in their own district, but we 
don't nitpick homeland security. You don't spread the money around so 
thinly so you never make truly one area or region or community truly 
safe.
  They said that until Congress passes a law to allocate funding on the 
basis of risk and vulnerabilities, scarce dollars will continue to be 
squandered.
  ``Second, States and localities need to have emergency response plans 
and practice them regularly. Hurricane Katrina taught us a lesson that 
we should have learned from September 11: From the moment disaster 
strikes, all first responders need to know what to do and who is in 
charge.''
  Do they know that? No.
  ``Third, we called on Congress to give first responders a slice of 
the broadcast spectrum ideal for emergency communications.'' That won't 
happen until 2009. What in God's name are we waiting for? 2009? What 
happened to the interoperability in communications that was so 
essential that was the major problem on 9/11?
  I don't have time to go through all of the recommendations, Mr. Meek, 
because homeland security is so woefully lacking and the congressional 
leadership here has done, I can't even use that word, congressional 
leadership has done such a poor job of implementing their 
recommendations and making us safer that it is laughable. It is 
ridiculous. It is outrageous for them to suggest that they are the 
party of national

[[Page 18137]]

security and safety. I could go on and on.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I want to share as we end here from 
the Newt Gingrich commentary from the Wall Street Journal where he 
talks about some of this stuff, about trying to figure out what the 
solutions are by figuring or understanding what the problems are.
  Then he talks about, and this is his advice to George Bush, ``Then he 
should announce an honest review of what has not worked in the first 5 
years of the war.'' That is what we have been saying. Let's find out 
what has not been working. Based on the findings, he should initiate a 
sweeping transformation of the White House national security apparatus. 
Good idea.
  The current hopelessly slow and inefficient interagency system should 
be replaced by a new metrics-based and ruthlessly disciplined 
integrated system of accountability. That is what we want to do. 
Accountability. Let's sit down and have hearings and figure this out. 
The House of Representatives has a role to play in this oversight. The 
President should insist upon creating a new, aggressive, 
entrepreneurial national security system. It is time to do this.
  Following this initiative, the President should propose a dramatic 
and deep overhaul of homeland security grounded in metrics-based 
performance to create a system capable of meeting the seriousness of 
the threat.
  This is about reforming the institution of government. The former 
Speaker understands it. The Democratic Party understands it, and the 
only people who seem not to get it are the people who serve in this 
administration and the high levels of this Congress. I hope it changes. 
All of the charts that we are using tonight are available on this 
website, www.House Democrats.gov/30Something. It has been an enjoyable 
evening once again.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, I want to say that Ms. Wasserman 
Schultz is going to get an opportunity to go through her homeland 
security piece when we are on the floor again.
  I want to encourage members to go on HouseDemocrats.gov and get a 
copy of the real security plan that we have here. We even have it in 
Spanish. Also energizing America is on there, and also an innovation 
agenda that has a lot of CEOs and leaders in the education field. They 
say they endorse our plan.
  With that, we thank the Democratic leadership for allowing us to have 
this time. It is an honor to address the House once again.

                          ____________________