[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 13]
[House]
[Pages 18340-18346]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is recognized 
for 60 minutes.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to come before the 
House once again. As you know, the 30-Something Working Group has been 
coming to the floor for 3\1/2\ years with great intensity in the last 2 
years because a lot has been happening to America versus for America as 
it relates to national policy in the area of health care, education, 
economic development, helping small businesses and large businesses 
provide health care insurance for their workers.
  We can go from as large a company as General Motors having to cut 
back on their employee workforce and having to make major cutbacks at 
U.S. companies because of a lack of a policy dealing with health care. 
You can go all of the way down to the small business that only has 5 or 
6 employees that are encouraging their employees to get on Medicaid 
because they can't afford to give them a package that is affordable for 
those individuals to provide health care insurance for their families.
  Those of us in the 30-Something Working Group, we don't come to the 
floor to say Republicans, Democrats, Independents, what have you. We 
come to the floor to give the American people the straight talk and 
also Members of Congress straight talk about what they are not doing 
for their constituents and Americans in general.
  We are the leader of the free world as it relates to a democracy, but 
our democracy and economy is suffering because of a lack of oversight, 
a lack of adhering to Article I, section 1, of the U.S. Constitution 
that says we are supposed to be the legislative body.
  Mr. Speaker, I must say there are a number of Republican Members that 
are coming down to the floor because I can tell you, if I was on the 
majority side, I would be quite nervous right now. When the election is 
50-some-odd days away and the American people are looking around and 
saying, why don't we have the essentials, such as a health care policy?
  Why do we have a number of red and blue States suing the Federal 
Government over lack of funding for Leave No Child Behind?
  Why do small businesses have to tell their employees to get on 
Medicaid, a government program, when they could provide health care 
insurance for their employees?
  Why do we have veterans that are going to see a specialist at a VA 
hospital and have to wait over 3 weeks, in some instances 2 months, to 
see that specialist when they have a problem? Those individuals shed 
blood and watched their friends and colleagues and comrades die. Those 
individuals come here to the Washington Mall, right down the street 
from this Capitol, to see the names and sometimes visualize the faces 
of those individuals who lost their lives. These are individuals that 
may not have legs or arms. Some are living the memory of what they went 
through, but yet they have to stand in line.
  If I was a part of the Republican majority, I would have an issue as 
relates to the wrong direction that they have led this country.

                              {time}  2045

  I wouldn't say the Republican majority has led the country in the 
wrong direction. They have followed the President in a rubber stamp 
atmosphere. They haven't stood up to the President and said Article I, 
section 1 of the U.S. Constitution says we have to legislate, we have 
to have oversight. So shall it be written, so shall it be done, by the 
President of the United States, and now we find ourselves in a 
situation that we have never been in the history of the United States 
of America. This is not political rhetoric, this is the fact. This is a 
fact.
  Now we have a President that is running around here saying that he 
wants to privatize Social Security, if he has a Congress that would 
deliver it, a majority, in the next Congress. Now, I can tell you, the 
President came in, he had privatization, he had 2 privatization 
commissions that went out and tried to find information on how they can 
privatize Social Security.
  We spent a lot of time in the first half of the of the 109th Congress 
last year trying out how we could please the President, the majority, 
how we could please the President by privatizing Social Security that 
would cut benefits for survivors, that would cut benefits for retirees 
and cut benefits for individuals that became disabled at the time of 
war.
  The only winners in the privatization of Social Security would have 
been Wall Street to the tune of $530 billion. I can speak boldly here 
today. I don't have to look at notes, because I already know this. 
Those of us on the 30-Something Working Group had well over 1,000 
townhall meetings throughout the country with a coalition of Americans, 
Democrats and Republicans to push back the President and the rubber 
stamp Congress and not allowing seniors not to have that security that 
they signed up for.
  So I must say that this is not rhetoric, this is fact.
  I just want to mention something, since I am joined here with my 
friend, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the 30-Something 
Working Group. We don't have to quote what Democrats have said about 
this Republican majority. We can quote the past Speaker of this House 
of Representatives, Newt Gingrich. There is not a day that you pick up 
the paper and he says he doesn't understand what is going on in 
Congress right now.
  This is an individual, that led the quote, unquote, Republican 
revolution that took place. They were supposed to balance the budget, 
they were supposed to make sure that they have accountability, they 
were to make sure that they have maximum oversight. None of that has 
happened.
  If I can just take, about, maybe 4 minutes, and just kind of go down 
the line, because I know the previous speakers kind of painted this 
picture that the Democrats are stopping something great from happening.
  Well, I just want to break this down for the Members in case we don't 
understand the majority and minority rule here. We can't bring a bill 
to the floor, not that we don't have the desire to do so, it is because 
we are in the minority. The bottom line we are in the minority, 
especially in this partisan House of Representatives, because only the 
majority can allow bipartisanship, true bipartisanship. We have already 
said, if given the opportunity within a little bit over 50 days, that 
we would work in a bipartisan way starting in January, tackling the 
major issues.
  Now, here are the facts, the only party in this House that has 
balanced the U.S. budget, the Democratic majority at that time, without 
one Republican vote. We balanced the budget. We were not borrowing from 
foreign nations. If someone wants to ask a question, why don't we have 
a true coalition in the war on Iraq? We don't we have the cooperation 
that we need to be able to go after Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan 
where poppy plants, I must say, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, is the main 
funder of the al Qaeda network in Afghanistan.
  Meanwhile, we have troops and coalition forces that are saying that 
we

[[Page 18341]]

need help, and we cannot respond. The reason why we cannot respond, 
because we have this war of choice in Iraq. Over 2,000 Americans have 
lost their lives, the second largest coalition there outside of, 
without looking at notes, without looking at notes, the largest 
coalition that is there outside of the U.S. forces are, what, U.S. 
contractors, at the tune of over $300 billion that has already been 
spent on the war, as far as I can see.
  Republicans on the majority side are saying, the super majority of 
Republicans, because I do believe a few of them have spoken out on the 
fact that we need a plan in Iraq. The plan is, is what the President 
has said, stay the course. If I was a CEO of a company, and we 
overspend, mismanagement, scandals as it relates to U.S. stockholders, 
I would say to the U.S. taxpayers in our case that have lost money, 
report after report, attacks are up in Iraq.
  We have the President of Iran and the Prime Minister of Iraq, look at 
this right here. It is not a handshake, this is embracing. These two 
countries were at war. I have been to Iraq.
  I have gone in the parade stadium that Saddam Hussein had where the 
helmets are embedded in the ground there as you march into that parade 
stadium, stepping on the helmets of Iranian soldiers, that they 
defeated Iran in past conflicts, and, look. This is the Prime Minister 
of Iraq that came and spoke at that podium, here, that the U.S. 
taxpayers paid for, democracy over 224 years, came there and spoke to 
this U.S. Congress in a joint session.
  I was sitting right there. I remember it vividly. He had very 
disparaging comments to say as it relates to Israel, and he has gone on 
to Iran. What happened at that meeting, Ms. Wasserman Schultz? He said, 
we have a bond, we have cooperation, and we are going to work together 
as it relates to defense for the region.
  Here is a man, the President of Iran, that has said, I want to debate 
the U.S. President. Not only do I want to debate the U.S. President, we 
are willing to do everything that we have to do, and he has nuclear 
weapons right now that are in development that are pointed at our 
allies in the Middle East and could be a threat to the United States of 
America.
  When we started talking about the facts, we have a notebook of facts. 
As a matter of fact, we have a whole milk carton here of facts. The 
fact is that the Republican majority can't come when they have full 
control. It couldn't be better. It could not be better. How can you 
have the majority in the Senate, a majority in the U.S. House, the 
presidency of the United States of America, all of the cabinet 
secretaries are on board, and it is a streamline. It is a streamline of 
rubber stamping.
  The President sits in the Oval Office, and we have evidence that the 
private sector is welcome to the Oval Office, those individuals, 
special interests, I wouldn't say private sector, I say special 
interests that are sitting at the table, that are taking out their pens 
and writing policy, and they send it to Capitol Hill.
  When they send it to Capitol Hill, they are met at the front door. 
The Republican leadership says, Mr. President, if you say that this is 
the right thing to do, without a hearing, if a hearing even takes 
place, because we have had bills that have come through the door of the 
U.S. Capitol, and have been on the floor by the afternoon, this brings 
a whole new meaning, Members, to that old cartoon that says, I am just 
a bill on Capitol Hill, and it goes through a process.
  Guess what, that whole cartoon has to change now, because that is not 
the case. It talks about the House and the Senate, and it says it goes 
to the President, the President vetoes it, it comes back to the House 
and Senate, they want an override, and it becomes law.
  But in this new version on Capitol Hill, first of all it starts with 
the writing of the bill of a special interest here in Washington, D.C. 
The special interests write the bill and someone over in the White 
House says, oh, would you, okay. That is fine. This is good. Okay, 
done. That is not a democracy. It comes here, and it goes through the 
process, and it starts with a special interest. So we have to rewrite 
that cartoon.
  I look forward to Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You said tonight you wanted 
to talk a little bit about the homeland. You ran out of time last night 
as to some of the facts.
  I also have some other facts over here, but I think it is very, very 
important, as we start looking at www.HouseDemocrats.gov/30Something, 
our whole plan as it relates to moving America in a new direction 
versus the wrong direction. Like I said at the beginning, I would be 
very nervous if I was a Member of the majority side. I would be very 
nervous, and I would run down to the floor and take every minute that I 
can take, every hour that I can take on the floor, trying to come up 
with the words of how they explain why things are not what they should 
be in the war in Iraq, in Afghanistan as it relates to, you know, Osama 
bin Laden releasing audiotapes and members of his regime, audiotapes 
constantly, videotapes, why we don't have health care in America, why 
do we have a number of red and blue States suing the government, lack 
of Federal education funding, why small businesses can't provide health 
care, why we have an out-of-control deficit.
  Why don't we have bipartisanship here in the U.S. House of 
Representatives that the American people have asked for? Why do we have 
veterans that are waiting for weeks, months sometimes, for health care?
  Why, in our own words, why aren't we dealing with meaningful 
legislation in the last 8 days of this Congress?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much to my good friend, Mr. 
Meek from Florida, friend and neighbor. It is funny, before we started 
this hour for our 30-Something Working Group, we had an opportunity to 
listen to our good friends on the other side of the aisle, and their 
rhetoric.
  I was reminded of the Doug Flutie ``Hail Mary'' pass. I think Mr. 
Flutie played for the New England Patriots in that game, and it was 
that ``Hail Mary'' pass that was pretty darn memorable.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Actually it was Boston College, and it was with 
the University of Miami.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are right. I stand corrected. You are 
probably a little bit more accurate on your football knowledge than I 
am. But I do remember the Doug Flutie ``Hail Mary'' pass.
  That is what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are 
engaged in at this point, they are out of options. They are trying the 
tired path of scare tactics to try to convince the American people that 
they are actually the ones who are strongest on national security and 
homeland security.
  There is just too much evidence mounted against them that is 
transparent and apparent to the American people, that they see it every 
single day. All anyone has to do is turn on the news, any channel, any 
hour that the news is on, to see that things aren't going so well and 
``stay the course.'' All ``stay the course'' amounts to is a slogan, 
not a strategy.
  If ``stay the course'' is their strategy, then I feel incredibly 
confident about what will happen 54 days from now. Everywhere I go, and 
I have been all over the country, so have you in recent weeks and 
months, people, even the most conservative individuals who I have had 
an opportunity to talk to, are dumbfounded that the Republicans have 
led us down this path, and are trying to lead people in America to 
believe that they are moving us in the right direction on protecting 
our Homeland.
  Monday was the 5-year anniversary, as you mentioned, of September 11. 
I was home, and I mentioned the last couple of nights that I was home 
with our first responders commemorating that tragic set of events. One 
of the most disturbing things, what we did was we actually did a 
roundtable with our first responders and sat down and asked them, where 
are we 5 years later? Are all the things that we said and identified 
that were problems in the aftermath of 9/11, have they been addressed, 
are we working on them, what do you still need?

[[Page 18342]]

  We really have to listen, that is our job, because we need to listen 
to our first responders and find out from them what is really going on 
the ground. I remember, I am sure you do too, that one of the most 
significant problems that was identified that has been talked about 
across this country is the interoperability, which is a word that is 
difficult to understand. That means the inability for the first 
responders on 9/11 to communicate with each other while the event was 
unfolding.
  That was one of the major, major recommendations of the bipartisan 9/
11 Commission that we had to fund and improve the interoperability so 
that across all of the jurisdiction, all of the intelligence and law 
enforcement jurisdictions, that there could be communication.

                              {time}  2100

  The FBI couldn't talk to the firefighters, couldn't talk to the 
police officers. And today, 5 years later, that is still not in place. 
Even though it was a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission. And it 
boils down to funding. You have to fund it. There is no way around it, 
there is no other way to accomplish it.
  But what are we doing instead? What are we spending our money on? 
Let's look at what the war in Iraq currently costs.
  Currently we are spending $8.4 billion with a B a month. We are 
spending $1.9 billion per week in Iraq on this war, $275 million per 
day, $11.5 million per hour.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. We are going to lay this on the table here, so 
the U.S. taxpayers know what they are paying for and also the Members 
know what they are paying for.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Let's remember this picture. We have funded 
this relationship. We have made this relationship between the Prime 
Minister of Iraq and the President of Iran, we have made that happen. 
These were sworn enemies. During our formative years Mr. Meek, Iraq and 
Iran were at war, bitter locked-horns war. If you recall, it was the 
Sunnis led by Saddam Hussein in Iraq versus the Shiites in Iran.
  What has occurred is that we have done by our actions in Iraq what 
thousands of years could not accomplish. We have basically upended the 
stability that existed there and brought the Shiites into control, and 
basically created a hotbed of chaos and terrorism that didn't exist 
before.
  Now, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle and President Bush 
would like very much to lead the American people and the international 
community to believe that the war on terror actually exists in Iraq. 
But every international expert that has weighed in on this insists that 
that is not the case; that the chaos that exists there now was created 
and that the war on terror doesn't need to be fought in Iraq. The way 
we fight the war on terror is making sure that the homeland is secure. 
But we can't do that, because our priorities are in the wrong place and 
we are spending this kind of money in Iraq.
  I could stand here and make these claims all day long, but nobody 
would identify me as an expert on terrorism or on the conflict, the war 
in Iraq. I am a Member of Congress, elected to represent my 
constituents.
  So let's turn to the people that we did ask to identify the problems 
in the aftermath of 9/11 and the war on terror and the things we needed 
to do to protect our homeland, The bipartisan 9/11 Commission, which 
was chaired by former Governor Tom Kean of New Jersey, a very well 
respected Republican, and former Member of Congress Lee Hamilton, a 
very well respected former Member of Congress. All the commissioners on 
there were chosen for their expertise.
  Let me just go through what they said on Monday. They wrote a public 
opinion piece, an op-ed that was published in the Boston Globe and I 
know many other papers, and what they said this:
  ``As we mark the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks, 
Americans ask, are we safer? Two years ago the 9/11 Commission found 
that our government failed in its duty to protect us. The commission, 
which the two of us led, made 41 recommendations to ensure that this 
Nation does everything possible to protect its people. Many of our 
recommendations, including those to reorganize the intelligence 
community, were written into law, yet no law is self-executing. 
Implementation is often the harder step.''
  And, boy do we know that, because it is the Congress' job to 
implement. All the recommendations in the world can come down from 
experts, but if Congress doesn't pass a law, like you said, the 
schoolhouse rock explanation of it has to go through the legislative 
process, it has to pass the committees, it has to pass both houses in 
the same form and go up to the President and he has to sign it, that 
hasn't happened.
  What they said is, ``We issued a report card on our recommendations 
in December. It included 10 C's, 12 D's and 4 F's. What we argued then 
is still true now, Americans are safer, but we are not yet safe.''
  That was the one question that I got the most often on Monday, Mr. 
Meek, was, ``Debbie, are we safer?'' I got asked that question by the 
press, I got asked that question by constituents, and the answer from 
the people that would know, the chairs of the 9/11 Commission, was we 
are safer, but we are not yet safe. Now, that is not a ringing 
endorsement over our efforts in the last 5 years.
  So they asked, what do we need to do, because that is what people 
want to know.
  ``First, homeland security dollars must be allocated wisely. Right 
now those funds are spread around like revenue sharing projects.''
  We had our friends on the other side of the aisle claim that they 
passed this remarkable earmark reform legislation today, which 
essentially only identifies a few individuals and ties them to the 
projects that they proposed. But basically what the 9/11 Commission is 
saying is that there are a bunch of little projects that Members have 
been able to insert into the process, but no regional or comprehensive 
approach to appropriating homeland security dollars so that you can get 
the really big, significant projects accomplished, like 
interoperability.
  ``Until Congress passes a law to allocate funding on the basis of 
risks and vulnerabilities, scarce dollars will continue to be 
squandered.'' This is Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton's words, not ours.
  ``Second, States and localities need to have emergency response plans 
and practice them regularly. Hurricane Katrina taught us a lesson that 
we should have learned from September 11: From the moment disaster 
strikes, all first responders need to know what to do and who is in 
charge.'' And if the directions were coming down from the Department of 
Homeland Security and Secretary Chertoff and there was a plan in place 
and we had our priorities right, then they would know that. But there 
isn't
  ``Third, we called on Congress to give first responders a slice of 
the broadcast spectrum ideal for emergency communications.'' Again, the 
interpretability so they could communicate with each other.
  ``Those frequencies, which easily carry messages through concrete and 
steel, are now held by TV broadcasters and will not be turned over to 
first responders until 2009.'' What are we waiting for? They ask, ``Why 
should public safety wait another 3 years?''
  ``Fourth, progress on information sharing among government agencies 
is still lagging. Because of failures in this area, we missed many 
chances to disrupt the September 11 plot. The Federal Government is 
doing a better job, but there are still turf fights and gaps in 
information sharing, especially with State and local authorities.''
  Mr. Meek, that was one of the things that was the most striking to me 
on Monday when I sat with our first responders in South Florida. What 
they said was that only 15 percent of their funding for homeland 
security comes from us, from the Federal Government. Eight-five percent 
of what they were able to accomplish in the last 5 years was only due 
to the fact that our sheriff's office and our county have been

[[Page 18343]]

very cooperative and stepped up to the plate and gotten what they 
needed to do done. But there is a long way for them to go, and there is 
no excuse for only 15 percent of the funding coming from the Federal 
Government to secure our homeland, except that we have billions of 
dollars going over to Iraq.
  ``Fifth, FBI reform is moving in the right direction, but far too 
slowly. Problems continue to plague the Bureau. Inadequate information 
technology, deficiencies in analytical capabilities and too much 
turnover in the workforce and Bureau leadership. The bureau still 
struggles.
  ``Sixth, we have taken a special interest in the Privacy and Civil 
Liberties Oversight Board, which we recommended and the Congress 
created. The importance of a second opinion before the executive branch 
goes ahead with controversial information gathering measures is 
essential.''
  That just has not occurred. In fact, the majority is moving in the 
opposite direction.
  ``Seventh, we still do not screen passengers against a comprehensive 
terrorism watch list before they get on airplanes. The sensible answer 
is for the government to do the name checking. Right now, airlines 
screen passengers against an incomplete list.''
  How is that possible? What I have noticed and what Americans really, 
if they were asked, if we went out of this Chamber and walked down the 
street and we asked most Americans what they can identify as the most 
tangible thing we have done to improve our homeland security, they 
would probably answer that they have to remove their shoes before they 
walk through a metal detector and they have to check their Coke at the 
door.
  We cannot rest our homeland security, the sum total of it, on taking 
off your shoes and not taking your Coke on the plane. We have to go 
much further than that. We don't check the cargo that goes in the belly 
of the airplane, we check less than 5 percent of the containers that go 
through our ports, and we have some graphical depictions of that as 
well.
  Look at this. Less than 6 percent of U.S. cargo is physically 
inspected; 95 percent is not inspected.
  Let's take a look at some other statistics. This Republican Congress 
has shortchanged port security by more than $6 billion. The Coast Guard 
indicated after 9/11 when they talked about how much they needed for 
the Maritime Transportation Security Act that they needed more than $7 
billion. We have appropriated $900 million, Mr. Meek. The facts are all 
there. The words are spoken on the other side, but the facts just don't 
back it up.
  I am going to go through the last couple of items, because this is so 
damning. And this isn't coming from Democrats, this is coming from the 
bipartisan chairs of the 9/11 Commission, and they wrote this Monday.
  ``Eighth, security is not just a question of airplane procedures,'' 
like I was just saying. ``The fundamental problem is radicalization in 
the Muslim world. The enduring threat is not Osama bin Laden, but young 
Muslims without jobs or hope who are angry with their governments, who 
don't like the war in Iraq or U.S. foreign policy. We need to do a 
better job reaching out to the Muslim world so that America is seen as 
a source of hope and opportunity, not despair.''
  Now, one of the worst things that has happened since our invasion of 
Iraq is the decline in the perception of America's standing in the 
world. We have so degraded our relationships with foreign nations and 
world leaders and the perception of America has so badly deteriorated 
that you have young Muslims and young individuals across the globe who 
have a view of America that is the opposite of what kids worldwide and 
individuals worldwide looked at America when President Kennedy, 
President Johnson, President Reagan were in office.
  What this administration and this President have done to the 
perception of America internationally is abominable.
  ``Ninth, Congress needs to reform itself.'' Now, this is very 
interesting. This is one of the most particularly damming 
recommendations and criticisms coming from the 9/11 Commission chairs.
  ``Congress has provided powerful powers to the executive branch in 
order to protect the Nation. To protect our freedoms, it now needs to 
be an effective check on the executive. Because so much information is 
classified, Congress is the only source of independent oversight on 
intelligence and homeland security issues. The oversight committees 
need stronger powers over budgets and jurisdiction.''
  That says it all right there, Mr. Meek. The leadership of this 
Congress, the Republican leadership of this Congress, has ceded the 
Congress's oversight authority to the executive branch. They have 
thrown up their hands and given up and said, you do whatever you want, 
because what are they, Mr. Meek? They are a rubber stamp Republican 
Congress and they do whatever the administration wants. They lay down 
and do whatever they ask. And it even shocks the conscience of the 
chairs of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission.
  When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they wrote it so 
that there would be a system of checks and balances, so that we are a 
coequal branch of government. Only this administration and this 
leadership in this Congress don't seem to want to adhere to that.
  ``Finally,'' they say in this piece, ``preventing terrorists from 
gaining access to nuclear weapons must be elevated against all other 
problems of national security.'' Just like you were referring to a few 
minutes ago.
  They ignore North Korea, they ignore Iran. They are doing a lot of 
hand-wringing over Iran because we are spread so thin militarily, and, 
Mr. Meek, you are on the Homeland Security Committee, you would know 
better than anybody else, that we are spread so thin militarily that we 
don't even have all the tools in our arsenal available to us, because 
we are all over the place worldwide militarily.
  ``Nuclear terrorism would have a devastating impact. The commission 
called for a maximum effort against this threat, including stepped up 
efforts to secure loose nuclear materials abroad, and our current 
efforts fall far short.''
  They close by saying, ``We will surely face more terrorist attacks, 
yet our sense of national urgency is lacking. Our elected leaders need 
to act now to provide for the common defense, because the terrorists 
will not wait.''
  If that isn't a damning indictment of our efforts in homeland 
security and the Republicans' inaction, then I don't know what is.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Well, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I think it is 
important for me to just share some information with the Members, Mr. 
Speaker, is the fact that what Ms. Wasserman Schultz has just gone 
through is not only factual, it wasn't written by the Democratic 
minority, it wasn't written by some person over at the Democratic 
National Committee. This is from the 9/11 Commission, and they just 
recently released it, a bipartisan commission.
  Number two, it is almost not fair, Mr. Speaker, for us to share this 
information, not only with the Members, but with others, because it is 
so accurate and it is unfortunate that it is accurate. At no other time 
in the history of this country have we found ourselves in this posture.

                              {time}  2115

  Now, Members can come to the floor and start talking about what we 
are going to do with other countries. We owe other countries money. We 
are borrowing from other countries like we have never borrowed before 
in the history of the Republic, and that is the reason why we feel 
encouraged to come to the floor night after night, day after day, week 
after week, month after month, year after year, and put it on printed 
paper in the Congressional Record. So when historians look at this time 
and wonder where was the U.S. Congress when all this was happening, I 
believe that historians are going to look back on this time and say the 
American people rose up, Democrats, Republicans, independents, those 
that could not vote that made

[[Page 18344]]

themselves eligible to vote to stop this from happening.
  Now, Ms. Wasserman Schultz mentioned something about military 
preparedness and the fact that we cannot even respond to other issues 
that may happen in the world. I am on the Armed Services Committee, and 
we come to the floor to conduct serious business. This is not some sort 
of news show where someone asks you a question, some sort of trick 
question, and you try to respond within 3 minutes. This is the U.S. 
Congress. This is not a 501(c)(3). I talked about that last night.
  What we have here, Mr. Speaker, is a rubber stamp Congress that is 
willing to rubber stamp anything that the President sends to Capitol 
Hill. It is very unfortunate that this is the case. And because of 
that, we have ourselves in this situation.
  Under the leadership of the President and the Secretary Rumsfeld, 
U.S. military readiness has dropped to historic lows. The U.S. Army 
readiness, in particular, has dropped to levels not seen since 1970 and 
will continue to be stressed by combat in Iraq which falls most heavily 
on the Army and Marine Corps. Two-thirds of army operating force, 
active and reserve, is now reporting in as unready, and there is not a 
single nondeployment of an army brigade combat team in the United 
States of America that is ready to be deployed.
  What is the reference point here? It is not the Democratic National 
Committee. It is not even the Democratic Caucus. It is the National 
Security Advisory Group. When? August 1 of 2006. These are individuals 
that are supposed to be the watchdog of national security. That is with 
what they are saying.
  How did this happen, Mr. Speaker? It didn't happen because the Army 
and Marines said, Hey, we want to overextend ourselves and we want to 
put ourselves in a position to where every brigade has been deployed to 
Iraq. This is the situation that we are in when we go alone.
  Now, let us just put Iraq aside just for a second. When you look at 
the testimony and those retired generals that are now free to say 
whatever they want to say since they are no longer in the Department of 
Defense, and, Mr. Speaker, I must say for the record, Secretary 
Rumsfeld just said recently, the last couple of days, anyone who comes 
to him about the issue of redeployment within the Department of Defense 
can go find another job, in so many words. Was there a chairperson of a 
subcommittee in Armed Services or the Appropriations Committee as it 
relates to armed services, the Department of Defense? Was there the 
Chair of the full Committee on Appropriations in the U.S. House? Was 
there a Chair of the Armed Services Committee that said wait a minute, 
hold it, I am sorry? Is this the same administration and the same 
Secretary of Defense that said we take our lead from the commanders in 
the field and from those experts that wear the uniform that have made a 
statement such as that? If I was a four-star general, a three-star 
general, or want to be a three-star general, a two-star general or a 
brigadier general or a colonel that wants to one day become a colonel, 
I think I may step back and say, well, one of two things. Either I am 
going to be quiet in the Department of Defense in this democracy that 
we call the United States of America or I am going to retire. Guess 
what. These generals have retired and they are talking, and they are 
talking about their frustration. These heroes for our country are now 
taking it upon themselves because they allowed us to this point to 
salute one flag, and they said they will give up their careers and they 
will step out of the Department of Defense to be able to let the 
American people know what is going on.
  Look at these generals. Look at them. You would have some Members of 
Congress who say why are they speaking against the Department of 
Defense? Why aren't they still in the fight? Well, they are in a fight 
for democracy and the truth. They are in a fight to make sure that the 
American people know exactly what is going on. They are in a fight for 
the very reason why people have fought and died for this country to 
allow the American people to know better.
  Now, let me just mention something very quickly because I want to 
make sure that all of the Members know exactly what they need to know 
as it relates to the national security plan. Real Security, 
housedemocrats.gov/30something. You can go on there and get the Real 
Security plan.
  Energy independence. Folks talk about Saudi Arabia. We, the 
Democratic Caucus here in this House, want to invest in the Midwest 
versus the Middle East. We want to use our natural resources. We want 
to use coal. We want to use E-85, which can be made out of corn and 
what have here in the United States of America. Energizing America. Go 
on housedemocrats.gov.
  You want to talk about innovation? You want to talk about education? 
You want to talk about domestic issues? You want to even see quotes 
from CEOs, Democrats, Republicans, and independents, that are trying to 
find a workforce innovating America? You want broadband access 
throughout America? We are nowhere close to where the Republican 
majority and the White House have said we are going to be as it relates 
to broadband. Right here: Innovation Agenda.
  We have six points, Mr. Speaker, in 2006 to make sure that American 
people know that we have the will and the desire to lead this country 
in a new direction versus the wrong direction. This is not talk. This 
is action. There are bills right now filed in the 109th Congress in 
this second session that will deal with the issue of education, health 
care, national security, the war in Iraq.
  We have a plan for the war in Iraq. What is the Republican majority 
plan? Stay the course? That is one line. Stay the course. Stay the 
course what? What is your plan? Where is the coalition? You are in 
control. It is almost like someone driving a car and you are a 
passenger in the car. You are trying to grab the wheel, but meanwhile 
someone is there hitting your arm, saying, ``You can't grab the wheel 
because we are in charge. We paid for this car. We are moving this car 
in this direction, and this is what we are going to do.'' And the 
bottom line is that may be okay in a trip from Washington, D.C. to 
Richmond, Virginia, but it is not okay when you are talking about the 
United States of America and protecting America.
  You want to talk about what we want to do as it relates to homeland 
security? We want to implement what Ms. Wasserman Schultz talked about, 
the bipartisan commission, the full 9/11 recommendations. What are 
they? Well, we have got individuals going to the plane, giving up hand 
sanitizers, guzzling down water, taking off shoes, belts, and what have 
you, having to leave a picture frame or something there at the 
Transportation Security Agency, TSA, there at the gate. Meanwhile a 
container comes in on a truck, a cargo container, goes right in the 
belly of the plane. It could be packed full of explosives. We will 
never know.
  But it does not satisfy me in any way to come to the floor after a 
terrorist attack happens to say I told you so. That is not what the 
point is here. The point is it is protecting America by doing what the 
9/11 Commission called for.
  What else did they call for? Something very simple. Other countries 
are doing it. A 100 percent container check on cargo ships that are 
coming into the ports of the United States of America. Oh, wow, that is 
something simple. That are then loaded on trucks and that are going out 
to the United States of America in towns and cities and counties and 
urban areas throughout America. The terrorists are patient, very 
patient. 9/11 took a long time to plan. Why should we wait to learn 
what the terrorists' new plan may be?
  There are Members on this floor that are making personal attacks on 
other Members of Congress. What are those personal attacks? Well, you 
know, we feel that the Democrats are holding us back and are they for 
the terrorists or are they for the United States of America? That is 
silly. I am just going to go ahead and say that is silly. I won't

[[Page 18345]]

even go so far as saying that the Republican majority is helping the 
terrorists. I wouldn't say anything like that. But that is what 
happens, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, when you are gasping for air. When it 
is desperation.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Doug Flutie.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you. A Doug Flutie Hail Mary pass when the 
clock has now hit almost 0:00 and trying to sensationalize a speech or 
just saying that, well, I will just say this even though it is not 
true. I know it is not true. And we even have Republican leaders that 
have made those kinds of statements and have been asked by the press 
about them and then said, well, I didn't really mean that, but they 
thought it was important for them to say it here in the Congressional 
Record in the House of Representatives for several generations to see 
beyond this one.
  So I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that we talk about the 
facts. And if I can for just a moment, the fact is this: We borrow from 
foreign countries like we have never borrowed before. And I think it is 
important that I pull this chart out.
  This Republican Congress and President Bush, and he couldn't do it by 
himself, borrowed in 4 years $1.05 trillion; versus 42 Presidents, 224 
years in the history of this country, have been only able to borrow 
1.01. I will say that until the 109th Congress and beyond because in 
the 110th Congress, if the American people will see fit, we will pull 
this chart out again and we will talk about our guarantee to knock this 
number down. Forty-two Presidents, 224 years, World War I, World War 
II, other conflicts, the Great Depression, you name it, it has been a 
part of the history of this country. One the President, one Congress, 
$1.05 trillion, and counting, borrowing from foreign nations.
  Mr. Speaker, where did we get these numbers from? Why don't we start 
with the U.S. Department of Treasury. Who are the countries? Let us 
look at this: Japan, coming in at a whopping $682.8 billion. China, 
coming in at $249.8 billion.
  We have Members coming to the floor talking about we are going to be 
the superpower and economic power of the world. Guess what. We owe 
these people money. How could we go to them with a straight face and 
say this is what we are going to do and this is how we are going to do 
it because we are the United States of America? First of all, you need 
to let go of the money that you owe me as a country. You owe us. That 
is almost like going to your next-door neighbor and borrowing $300 and 
then coming to them and telling them about what kind of plants they 
should be planting in front of their house. How can you tell them, Mr. 
Speaker, when you owe them money? First of all, you can't even get into 
the conversation about what they should do and how they should do it as 
a country and working in whatever cooperation it may be. It could be a 
G-8 summit. It could be an issue dealing with the environment. They are 
going to say, First of all, before you even get that out, now that you 
are finished, when are you going to pay back this $682.8 billion you 
owe me as a country and my people?
  So the Republican majority, with the White House, has placed us in a 
situation that we have never been in before. This is a rubber stamp. 
The Republican majority knows it. It is on the floor every night. Just 
like this mike is here, this Republican rubber stamp is here.
  Mr. Speaker, one guarantee. When the Democrats take control of this 
House, we are going to have a ceremony maybe about 150 yards away from 
the Capitol building so that we can burn this rubber stamp, so that we 
can then hold up the Constitution, so that we can hold up article I, 
section 1 of the U.S. Constitution and say we will legislate. We will 
have oversight. We will not have Katrina contractors running away with 
U.S. tax dollars. We will not have a farm field full of trailers and 
meanwhile we have people in Mississippi and Louisiana homeless. This 
will not happen. We will not wait, as the Federal Government, for 3 to 
4 days and watch people suffer on international television and then 
come back to Washington, DC, saying that we are sending blankets and 
ice and we just started.

                              {time}  2130

  We will be there for the American people. This Constitution here, 
Article I, section 1, of this Constitution says that we have the 
legislative powers of this country and it lands here in the Congress, 
the Congress that consists of the House and the Senate. But we cannot 
do it in a rubber-stamp atmosphere. If there is a Republican, 
Independent, Green Party, Democrat, somebody that is thinking about 
voting, somebody that is about to turn 18, they have to have a problem, 
Mr. Speaker, in the way this country is being operated.
  Now, I am going to turn this over to Ms. Wasserman Schultz in a 
minute, but let's talk about dollars and cents, if we can talk a little 
bit about the whole domestic piece, the priorities.
  There are some people that would love for us to talk about the war in 
Iraq. Well, guess what, there is pain and suffering that is going on 
right here in the United States of America every day from community to 
community, need it be a parish or a county, need it be a city or a 
town, or need it be a suburb, they are going through real issues.
  Talk about the minimum wage. Here is a sheet right here, Mr. Speaker. 
This year alone, nine attempts by the Democratic Caucus to raise the 
minimum wage in America that has not been raised since 1997. Since 
1997, $5.15 an hour. You know, it is very, very unfortunate, Mr. 
Speaker, that that is the fact. The Democratic plan that we have been 
pushing for a very long time is to move it from that number up to 
$7.25.
  But look what happened, Ms. Wasserman Schultz. You would think these 
are minimum wage increases. Oh, no, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Speaker. 
These are Members of Congress. Oh, yes. We are starting to buy a couple 
of new suits, a couple of St. Johns.
  I am not calling anyone out, I am just saying that is what it is. And 
the bottom line is that since 1997, the Republican majority has been in 
control, they have been getting paid, and I mean paid, every year. And 
I am going to tell you, as a Member of Congress that has to keep a home 
in Miami and one here in Washington, D.C., it is a strain on Members of 
Congress.
  And you know something, I don't think the American people have a real 
huge problem with the issue of Members of Congress being able to 
support their families, this, that, and the other. But when we don't 
support them, when we don't have their back, then that is the problem.
  And I know, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, you are dying to get in on this, 
but let me just mention this. 1998, $3,100 for Members of Congress, 
zero for the American people. $4,600 for U.S. Members of Congress, zero 
for the American people. $3,800, zero for the American people. $4,900, 
zero for the American people. 2003 on to 2006, you see the numbers. 
2006, $3,100, zero for the American people.
  Now, let me just make sure I am factual, Mr. Speaker, because that is 
what we do in the 30-Something Working Group, because this is not about 
dancing in the end zone. The Republican Congress brought up a bill 
talking about the minimum wage, and they put together a bill that would 
not see the light of day in the U.S. Senate, would never see the desk 
of the President of the United States. But just to say that we passed a 
bill off the floor, that is what they wanted to do. Well, we called it 
the Potomac Two-Step.
  And the bottom line is this, Mr. Speaker. The American people, they 
don't want slogans, they don't want talk; they want action. And this 
Republican Congress has not put forth the action.
  Now, to let you know in very blunt terms as I yield to Ms. Wasserman 
Schultz, we are going to go 5 minutes and 5 minutes. I am into almost 
my fifth minute here, but I am going to turn it over to you.
  Let me just say this. Within the first 100 days of a House majority 
by the

[[Page 18346]]

Democrats, the minimum wage will be raised, period. Not a lot of 
talking, not a lot of dancing around. The bill is already filed in this 
Congress. But, guess what, the Republican majority doesn't have the 
will or the desire to pass it.
  And this is what it means for salaried workers: If the minimum wage 
moves up to 7.25, then you will see workers that are on salary that are 
making over the minimum wage, their wages will nine times out of ten go 
up. Because to be able to get a workforce to what businesses need, they 
need to pay their workers; that will then help hopefully pay for the 
cost of health care that they have to pay. Some folks have to make the 
decision, am I going to have health care or am I going to live? And 
that is very, very unfortunate. But what has happened in this situation 
is that the Republican majority has guaranteed that the minimum wage 
will never be raised, will never deal with the issue of health care 
because there won't be any dollars to deal with it.
  So I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, to know exactly where we 
stand. Homeland security, fully implementing the 9/11 recommendations. 
Border security agents, the President sent to this Capitol Hill 216 in 
his budget; we ask for 2,000 border agents to be able to protect our 
borders just like the 9/11 Commission called for. If they were to 
implement the Democratic amendments that came to this floor that were 
voted down in a partisan way, the majority took over, we would have 
6,000 new border agents working now on the U.S. border.
  So when Members come to the floor on the majority side, on the 
Republican side and start talking about, oh, we are tough because we 
say we are tough. And the Democrats, they are holding us back. They are 
in the majority; that is not true.
  I will go ahead and say it: That is not true, Mr. Speaker. And the 
bottom line is that, the fact is that we have come to this floor to 
bring about real security in this country; and we will in a new 
Congress if the Democrats are in control.
  Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Meek. And I didn't ask the 
gentleman to yield because you were on such a roll, and you did such an 
incredible job of laying out the difference between what their 
priorities are and continuing to run in place, or where we would take 
us, which is a new direction for America.
  The bottom line is that on every measure, on homeland security, on 
the economy and jobs and the energy crisis, because there is no other 
way to describe when you have to spend more than $50 to fill up the 
average tank of gas, there is no other way to describe it except as a 
crisis. When you have that situation facing you, when you have 46 
million Americans who lack health insurance, which means when they are 
sick they can't go to the doctor; when you have a President who is hell 
bent on privatizing Social Security and yanking the rug out from under 
seniors who have worked their entire lives so that they have a floor of 
dignity holding them, so that they don't have to worry about choosing 
between medicine and meals, then we have got to make sure that we come 
to this floor every night and that we talk about the direction that we 
would take them and that we would take this country.
  Because we would invest in new alternative energy, we would invest 
our resources in new alternative energy research. We would make sure 
that the rhetoric that the President issued to us during the State of 
the Union, where he said we have to end America's addiction on foreign 
oil, that was just words with no action, that we will actually make 
that investment and invest in the Midwest, in ethanol and corn 
production and in our State and other States across the country that 
produce sugar so that we can really make a commitment to disconnecting 
ourselves from our dependence on foreign oil; so that we can actually 
make sure that we pass a prescription drug plan and change the one that 
the Republicans wrote for the pharmaceutical industry as opposed to the 
senior citizens that desperately needed the assistance, that we rewrite 
that plan so that seniors have the ability to pay for their drugs, so 
that there is no doughnut hole that on September 22 our constituents 
are going to be falling through and having an unbelievably difficult 
time climbing out of. Those are the things that we would do.
  After November 7, the new direction for America that we will take 
this country in will restore that dignity to senior citizens, will make 
sure that we create a prescription drug program that provides them with 
the prescription drug assistance that they need, that will invest in 
the Midwest, that will expand access to health care, that will make 
sure that we can pass stem cell research into law, and restore the 
accountability that this Congress should have been exercising and the 
oversight that we should have been exercising.
  I mean, really, why have a Congress? The way it has been operating 
since I have been here, Mr. Meek, and I have been here almost 2 full 
years now, why have a legislative branch? The rubber stamp, the rubber 
stamp that is used here by the Republicans and their leadership, you 
know, it makes having a Congress essentially unnecessary because they 
just do whatever the administration wants anyway.
  Listen, I could go home and spend a lot more time with my family than 
come here and waste our time on naming post offices and banning horse 
slaughtering. And not that those things aren't important; they are 
important to some people, but they are not the priorities of this 
country. They are not the priorities of the people when we go walking 
down the street in our communities and when I go and take my kids to 
their soccer game and to dance class, when I get in my car and drive my 
minivan around town.
  The people that I talk to, they don't get it. They are scratching 
their heads, and they don't understand the rhetoric that is coming out 
of here without any action, and they are yearning and begging us to 
give them a new direction. We have got to provide them with that new 
direction.
  Mr. Meek, we come to this floor every night as the 30-something 
Working Group, and I know we are about to wrap up here as we approach 
the end of our 60 minutes. We really appreciate the opportunity that 
Leader Pelosi gives us every night. And I want to direct our colleagues 
to our Web site, our 30-something Web site, www.housedemocrats.gov/
30something. All of the charts that we have had out here are available 
on that Web site, and we encourage folks to e-mail us with comments and 
our colleagues to e-mail us with comments.
  Mr. Meek, I yield to you.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
  I want to thank the 30-Something Working Group for all the hard work. 
And we will be back next week, Mr. Speaker. We would like to thank the 
Democratic leader for allowing us to have the time.

                          ____________________