[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 3]
[House]
[Pages 4175-4181]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Foxx). 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. Madam Speaker, this is 30-something Part 2 here. 
I am glad Ms. Wasserman Schultz and Ms. Bean had the opportunity to 
claim the first hour. I see Ms. Wasserman Schultz is proudly wearing 
her Florida pin, her Gators pin.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Go Gators.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. They are in the money, and I believe Florida 
will be able to do some great things.
  Let me just say, Madam Speaker, as you know, we come to the floor to 
talk about a number of things, talk about what we as Democratic Members 
here in the House have to offer the American people. We want to make 
sure that there is no secret about our plans, about our initiatives, 
and what we are trying to do to be able to make sure that this country 
gets back on fiscal discipline, track, be more physically, fiscally 
sound, I am sorry, I am trying to get it out, it is a little late, but 
also just to make sure we are accountable to the American people, not 
just accountable to the Democratic citizens of the United States of 
America, but to make sure that we are accountable to all Americans.
  I think that is the approach that we are taking, through the polling 
that I am seeing and reading, not only in periodicals, but also that I 
am getting individuals that are e-mailing what people are saying and 
how they feel. Madam Speaker, to my e-mail, a number of them, I am very 
pleased about how the Democratic Members of the House and Senate have 
stood up to this administration.
  As you know, Mr. Ryan, there are a number of issues that have been 
unearthed through what we do here on this floor, by sharing with the 
American people, Madam Speaker, with third-party validators and making 
sure that we share our plans with the American people and make sure 
that they are not what we say in some parts of the country, hoodwinked, 
bamboozled, or what we say here in Washington DC to be a recipient of 
the Potomac two-step.
  I believe now more than ever, Mr. Ryan, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, and 
Mr. Delahunt that the American people should and deserve to be leveled 
with. I think that is what we are looking for. They are not looking for 
who is the greatest party on the face of the Earth, and who has the 
best mascot or who wears the best tie or the best dress or the best 
suit or whatever the case may be. They are looking for individuals that 
are willing to govern above the table and not under the table.
  I know, with great confidence, that we are there 110 percent. On 
terrorism, we are there 110 percent. We are on the side of making sure 
that we track down the individuals who are responsible for 9/11. Not 
only track them down, but kill them if necessary. I think it is 
important that we lay that on the table right here, right now.
  The bottom line is the fact that we on this side of the aisle have 
fought on behalf of increasing container security at the ports. We just 
had an example last week, Mr. Ryan. Mr. Sabo had an amendment here on 
the floor. Another example that we are going to talk about a little 
later on is we tried to increase security at the ports on the heels of 
the whole lack of security at ports, Mr. Delahunt, and still the 
American majority voted it down.
  I am excited about the fact that we are back. I am excited about the 
fact that we are going to talk about some of these issues tonight.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. One of the issues, too, is we are talking about 
this. We now have evidence where a recent report coming into our hands, 
through the United States Senate, that investigators smuggled in enough 
radio active material to build two dirty bombs into the United States, 
which calls into question this administration's efforts to secure our 
borders.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Ryan, if you would just yield for a moment.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I think it is important to recollect for a moment our 
friends from the other side of the aisle, part of the Republican 
majority of this House, tonight were on the floor and they were talking 
about how for this Congress, this Bush Republican Congress, national 
security and homeland defense were a priority.
  It would appear that simply by repetition, by saying it somehow it 
translates into meaningful national security in real homeland defense. 
Yet we find again and again and again that this country, as a result of 
the actions by this White House and this Bush Republican Congress, have 
failed to provide homeland defense that is meaningful for this country.
  That report, by the way, it should be noted, was conducted by the 
Government Accountability Office. That is an independent arm of this 
Congress. This is not Democrats picking on Republicans.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. This isn't, Mr. Delahunt, and Mr. Meek, saying we 
are going to run a sting operation to check the ports and see how the 
borders are. This is the Government Accountability Office. This is 
their report, and they were able to sneak in, through the northern 
border and the southern border, enough radioactive material to build 
two dirty bombs in the United States of America.
  We are not here because we want to pick on anybody.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. If my friend would yield for a moment.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I want to commend a Senator, a Republican, that 
requested this particular GAO investigation and inquiry and 
commissioned that it be undertaken by this independent arm of the U.S. 
Congress. This is what that Republican Senator from Minnesota has to 
say about the findings and the conclusion of that report.

                              {time}  2300

  The Senator said, A report that investigators smuggled enough 
radioactive material to build two dirty bombs into the United States 
called into question the Bush administration's efforts to secure the 
borders.
  Senator Norm Coleman, a Republican, a Minnesota Republican, who heads 
the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations which held a 
hearing said he was alarmed at the ease with which investigators 
brought the unspecified radiological material and transported it across 
the northern and southern U.S. borders.
  Now, when I hear that this Bush Congress and this Bush White House 
have done something about homeland defense and national security, Madam 
Speaker, who is kidding who? Who is kidding who? Can't we have some 
honesty?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You know what strikes me when you say that is 
that we talk about the culture of corruption and cronyism and 
incompetence that has existed for quite some time now and it is only 
getting worse with every passing day, it is interesting that the 
administration appears to think that just by changing out a staffer, by 
swapping one person, a chief of staff, for another, that that is 
somehow going to magically transform this administration into a 
competent one.

[[Page 4176]]

  It is amazing to me that they could get materials into this country 
if they have been supposedly stepping up their commitment and our 
ability to keep our Nation secure in the last 5 years. How is that 
possible if they are running a tight ship like they say they are?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. If I can, there is a second report in addition to the 
one that we were just discussing. This second report, again, 
commissioned by the Republican chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on 
Investigations, its conclusions were this: The Homeland Security 
Department has placed 670 monitors at ports around the country. At the 
current pace the department will fail, let me repeat that, fail to meet 
its goal for installing 3,034 devices by September 2009. To reach the 
goal the department would need to install 52 monitors a month for the 
next four years, though its current installation rate is 22 a month, 
the report said.
  Now, this is to determine whether radioactive material that could be 
used in a dirty bomb is being detected. Now, by the way, if you happen 
to live in Miami or if you are from Georgia, you should know that the 
ports of Miami and Savannah, Georgia are among those without the 
devices that they need. So if you should be living in those particular 
States, be aware that you are vulnerable to have from the sea, through 
the ports, material that could be used in a dirty bomb come into your 
neighborhoods.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I want to comment. This is the same article, from 
the GAO report, again, a third party validator, not from the 30-
Something Group.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, that is a Blumberg news agency.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. This is a Blum-
berg news article. Thank you.
  This quote is from a retired Coast Guard Commander who is now a 
Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, Steven Flynn. ``Both 
the opportunity for terrorists to target legitimate global supply 
chains remain plentiful and the motivation for doing so is only 
growing.''
  We are living on borrowed time. And all we are saying here is that 
the strategy from this administration is wrong. You cannot convince me, 
Madam Speaker, that we could not marshal the resources of the United 
States of America and focus this country's energy on the equipment, the 
technology, the research that needs to be done to develop the newest 
technologies, and put them where they need to be, you cannot convince 
me that we could not do that, Mr. Meek. You cannot convince me that the 
United States could not do that.
  What we are saying here, and we are not here to pick on anybody, we 
do not want to hurt anybody's feelings but it seems that the end result 
can be tragic. And you know what, there may be a situation where we do 
do all we can and it may not be enough. But to sit here and see this 
haphazard garbage, lack of focus, this administration has the worst 
case of political A.D.D. we have seen in a long time and it is hurting 
the country.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Just put the facts out on the table. I just find it so 
amusing when I hear that national security and homeland defense is 
something that this side of the aisle, the Republican side of this 
aisle, the majority that runs this House in conjunction with the 
administration that is headed by a Republican President and a Senate 
that has a majority of Republicans are suggesting that national 
security and homeland defense are a priority, and yet study after 
study, committee after committee reports that we are ill prepared.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Delahunt, Mr. Ryan, you talk about A.D.D. 
and lack of focus in terms of making sure we can keep this Nation safe. 
Lest people think that the DPW port deal was an isolated incident where 
we think that that was an anomaly and we are not continuing down that 
path of engaging foreign governments and the corporations they own to 
help us with our national security or to be involved in our national 
security, right after the withdrawal of DPW we learn, and through a 
third party validator again, the Associated Press, that the 
administration acknowledged that they issued a no-bid contract to 
Hutchinson Whampoa Limited which represents the first time a foreign 
company will be involved in running a sophisticated radiation detector 
at an overseas port without American customs agents present.
  I mean, what is going on?
  We are from Florida. The Bahamas is 30 minutes by plane. It is really 
unbelievable that there is an astonishing lack of concern about the 
gaping holes in our national security that this administration appears 
to have no qualms about leaving unprotected.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I think it was you, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, that alluded 
earlier to the experience of Katrina and other national disasters. I 
mean, there was a report issued again by a subcommittee of this House 
that concluded that the response to Katrina was a failure of 
leadership. I mean, that cannot be said any more succinctly or simply.
  A member of the committee, again, a Republican, let me repeat that, 
not a Democrat but a Republican, our colleague, Chris Shays from 
Connecticut, said this: The report is very tough on the President. It 
is very tough on the Department of Homeland Security. It is a 
blistering report but I think it is fair.
  The panel found that Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff was 
detached, and that the then-FEMA Director Michael Brown was clueless, 
Shays said. In one of the excerpts Chertoff was chided for executing 
critical responsibilities late, ineffectively or not at all, according 
to the report and to Mr. Shays.

                              {time}  2310

  Yet, when I turn on any of the stations and the issue is homeland 
security, the spokesman for the Homeland Security Department is often 
Secretary Chertoff. So let us just continue along that road, and you 
know what is going to happen? We are going to continue to find a 
failure of leadership in every instance that this administration is 
implicated in.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, last week, we had an opportunity, 
Mr. Sabo from Minneapolis-St. Paul offered an amendment in this House 
to add over $1 billion to port security, homeland security, in the 
supplemental, and it got shot down on pretty much a party-line vote.
  Time and time again, the Democratic Party has offered amendments in 
committee to increase funding for homeland security, and the majority 
side, time and time again, shoots down those amendments to add 
additional funding. But if it comes to giving tax cuts to the 
wealthiest people in the country, they are all standing, saying we have 
got to go for it, but if we need an extra $1 billion for homeland 
security, everyone heads for the hills, and they hide under the seats.
  Here's a list, June 17, 2003, Mr. Obey from Wisconsin, increase port 
and maritime security by $500 million. Republicans defeated the 
amendment on a party-line vote.
  June 24, 2003, another amendment by Mr. Obey, increase port and 
maritime security again by $500 million. We are not even addressing the 
problem. I mean, $7 billion more we need, $6- or $7 billion more just 
to address what the Coast Guard is telling us we need. Mr. Obey is only 
asking for $500 million, Madam Speaker. Republicans block consideration 
of that amendment by a vote of 222-200. That is Rollcall vote 305, 
Madam Speaker, and this other one was in the House Report 108-169, page 
97, for the Members, Madam Speaker, who would like to look it up.
  We are not making this up. You people want to know what the Democrats 
want to do? We want to increase funding for port security, and the 
Republican majority will not let us.
  September 17, 2003, Mr. Obey, Mr. Sabo and Senator Byrd tried again 
to increase funding to enhance port and maritime security, $475 
million. Guess what happened, Madam Speaker. Republicans defeated this 
amendment on a party-line vote. You want to know what the Democrats 
want to do, Madam Speaker? We want to increase funding for port 
security by half a billion dollars.

[[Page 4177]]

  June 9, 2004, another amendment by Mr. Obey of Wisconsin in the 
Appropriations Committee to increase port and container security by 
$400 million. We are not asking for an arm and a leg here. We are still 
$6.5 billion away from where we need to be, but we are just trying to 
chip away. Throw us a bone. Help us out. We just want to get moving in 
the right direction here. What happened again? Republicans defeated the 
amendment on a party-line vote, House Report 108-541, page 128. Go look 
it up.
  I am quite frankly tired of hearing that the Democrats do not have an 
agenda because every single day in committee, no matter what committee 
it is, Appropriations Committee, Armed Services Committee, Education 
Committee, Homeland Security Committee, we are trying to get things 
done, and the Republicans block us every single time. This is what the 
Democrats want to do and we are getting blocked.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, it comes down to who is telling 
the truth and who is not. I mean, just because I may put something 
behind me and say that I stand for homeland security, do I really stand 
for homeland security? We are in the minority. When you are in the 
minority, Madam Speaker, I think it is important for us to explain to 
Members and staff, in case someone did not get the memo, that when you 
are in the majority you set the agenda that comes to the floor. You 
raise your hand thumbs up or thumbs down for your caucus to vote in the 
way that you want them to vote, when I talk about the Republican 
majority.
  I think it is important for us to understand that the White House has 
said, oh, we have a strategy for Iraq, and then we find out that they 
all along never had a strategy.
  Oh, we do not know anything about outing CIA agents. Some folks 
forgot about that. We do not even know the lady's name. Later, we find 
out through an independent investigative counsel that they knew 
everything about it.
  What are you talking about a port deal? We do not have any knowledge 
of this. What is going on on this, someone told me in the hall. I mean, 
they knew exactly what was going on and the reason why it is happening 
and the reason why folks are getting away with it.
  Like Secretary Rumsfeld, I am on the Armed Services Committee. It is 
an outright joke, to come before an Armed Services Committee to tell us 
whatever they want to tell us, and so shall it be written, so shall it 
be done; why are you asking questions. Matter of fact, I am bothered to 
come to Capitol Hill and have to respond to the Armed Services that 
constitutionally you have oversight over the Department of Defense.
  We have individuals that are in shirt and tie, have the look of 
frustration. I mean, you are going to ask us? Yeah, we have a war, and 
now, the President has just said, well, you know, as it relates to 
troop withdrawal, I guess that is up to another President.
  Mr. Ryan was talking about it earlier. He represents Youngstown. 
Someone says, Congressman, are we ever going to have a strategy as it 
relates to education?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, we never had a plan when we went in 
there, let alone a strategy to leave.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Let me say. Mr. Ryan and I were talking a little 
earlier, and it is like Mr. Ryan telling his constituents, well, I know 
we have to have an education strategy, but that is not my job; that is 
up to the next Congressman that represents Youngstown.
  Madam Speaker, the reason why the President is saying whatever he 
wants to say, when he wants to say it, is because this Republican 
Congress has allowed him to say it and get away with it. Our job is not 
the day-to-day operation of the war in Iraq. It is our job to bring in 
this presidency, making sure that we are accountable to those troops 
that are on the ground and our mission.
  The bottom line is, what is our mission? I mean, these are the 
individuals that gave this Congress bad information, and then the 
minute that they gave the Congress bad information got away with it.
  There were weapons of mass destruction. Then apologize, well, we got 
bad information on weapons of mass destruction. I am sorry, you know, 
hey, it happens, but individuals have died. Now, we have Iraqi troops 
that are now being downgraded; they cannot even fight without U.S. 
troops backing them up.
  Then the Secretary says, well, you know, there may be a civil war. 
There is a civil war going on in Iraq. Let us just say it. Let us put 
it out there.
  The coalition, you do not hear anything about the coalition getting 
bigger and greater. No, it is not getting bigger and greater. Matter of 
fact, the Brits are leaving this year and a number of other countries 
have said, hey, you know, I am willing to take the training wheels off 
the Iraqi Army.
  Let me just say this, Madam Speaker, because I think that Mr. Ryan 
laid it out so that everyone can understand. A new Member of Congress 
could understand what you just set out.
  The bottom line is that trying is not good enough. We need the 
American people to chime in and make their Member of Congress stand up 
on behalf of the American people. Mr. Ryan said correctly, and backed 
it up with the Congressional Record, the fact that we have a Republican 
majority that is more loyal to an individual riding around here making 
$1 billion or $1 million a year or record profits, or whatever their 
industry is, than they are committed to container security. It is not 
just what Kendrick Meek is saying. That is the fact, and Mr. Ryan laid 
it out, and yes, we do have a level of frustration.
  Folks say you seem like you are upset. Well, we should be upset, and 
I do not care if it is Democrat, Independent or Republican. Mr. 
Delahunt said it earlier, as far as ports. Containers come into a port. 
Guess what. There are trucks that they go on the back of and trains 
that they go on the back of. They go throughout America, and next thing 
you know, this issue makes it to the heartland or Sioux City, Iowa, or 
whatever the case. The people may say, well, that is a coastal issue. 
That is not a coastal issue. It is an American issue.

                              {time}  2320

  And they have been allowed to do whatever they want to do, whenever 
they want to do it because this Congress hasn't reined them in.
  I am going to close in 1 second, but I just want to also point out, 
Madam Speaker, since we are pointing out a few things here, that we 
have turned on the lights here in the Chamber. This whole Dubai thing 
and the Republicans marching around, ``We stopped that from happening; 
we blocked that deal.'' Well, guess what, there were a couple of votes 
before that where they tried to block it, but procedurally they blocked 
the Democrats from doing that. It is not who blocked it, it is about 
how we got there.
  How did an under secretary level individual make this kind of 
decision; the outsourcing of American Security? It happens every day, 
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. And I can tell you this, ``We are standing up to 
the President.'' No, you are not standing up to the President. But 
guess what? When all of America is standing on this side of the line 
and saying, are you representing us or who are you representing, are we 
standing up for Dubai?
  What did the President say? I got a little confused there, Members. I 
am sorry. The President said, well, we have got to keep our word. What 
about keeping our word to the American people on security and health 
care and all those things he talked about during the campaign? And all 
the Republican Members won the majority because they said, trust us on 
security, trust us on fiscal responsibility.
  Don't get me started on fiscal responsibility. It is almost like the 
guy running from the back of the class, who is an F student, who says I 
want to be the valedictorian of the class because I say that I am. Did 
not work, did not study, did not do the things that he needed to do to 
be the top person in the class, but better yet, because they say it, 
that makes it right.

[[Page 4178]]

  What does this mean, Mr. Delahunt? This means if the American people 
see fit that the Democrats are in charge of the Congress, that the 
White House will not be making statements and saying, well, we have 
said it publicly so that means you can't do anything about it, 
Republican Congress.
  And if folks want to talk about a Democratic plan in Iraq, it is 
accountability, it is making sure we take these no-bid contracts and 
put them on top of the table and really get down to the reason why we 
are still in Iraq. I am just talking about what I am talking about, Mr. 
Delahunt. I am not saying there are some shady deals, but there are a 
number of articles that are out that are pointing to this.
  Every day this stuff is coming out, Madam Speaker, and I think it is 
very, very important that we focus in on that.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. If I can just make an observation, Madam Speaker, I 
asked my staff to count the number of hearings that the International 
Relations Committee has conducted in terms of the United Nations and 
the need to reform the United Nations, and also hearings that had a 
focus on the so-called Oil-for-Food program. Throughout Congress there 
were dozens of those hearings.
  Do you know how many hearings we have had in the International 
Relations Committee on the issue of corruption that we know is going on 
in Iraq, Madam Speaker? Would you think maybe there have been 20 or 15 
or five? No, there are none, despite repeated requests from Members of 
this House. Not a single hearing into the corruption that many 
different sources have acknowledged is rampant in Iraq in the past 3\1/
2\ years. Not a single one. Because this Congress is afraid. This 
Congress is protecting the administration and is abrogating its 
responsibility.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Make sure we are clear about which part of the 
Congress is afraid and where the leadership has been exercised on our 
side of the aisle in terms of that oversight and where it has been 
shunned on the Republican side of the aisle, Mr. Delahunt.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Not a single hearing. Not a single hearing, Madam 
Speaker. Not one.
  Can anybody, can any Member, Republican or Democratic, please respond 
and provide an explanation, when there have been reports after reports 
after reports, indictments, reports from the special Inspector General 
for Iraq reconstruction. It cries out for investigation. It cries out 
for oversight, Madam Speaker.
  You know, when the CPA, the Coalition Provisional Authority, came in, 
and in the immediate aftermath of the fall of Saddam Hussein, and began 
to administer as a viceroy, if you will, for the nation of Iraq, there 
was $8.1 billion left over from the United Nations Oil-for-Food 
program. There was an audit done subsequently. Not a single penny of 
that $8 billion plus can be accounted for. That is outrageous.
  Why haven't we heard from this Congress the need to conduct oversight 
hearings? If the American people were aware of the requests that have 
been made continuously to do the kind of work that we were elected to 
do and is not being done, there would be outrage, Madam Speaker.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I just want to piggyback on your observations. 
I am the least senior of the four of us. I am a freshman, and about 15 
months into my first term. We have talked many times on this floor in 
our 30-something Working Group about the lack of outrage, the 
astonishing lack of outrage, the deafening silence on the other side of 
the aisle about all these things we are talking about.
  Why no hearings? Where is the accountability? Why aren't they 
demanding some answers from this administration about the results in 
Iraq, about how we got into Iraq, about the leadup, about the fact 
there were no weapons of mass destruction? And how come we haven't had 
any hearings on the intelligence and whether that was manufactured, or 
was it shaped around the decision that was already made clearly by this 
administration? Not one hearing. Not one hearing on almost anything 
since I have been in the United States Congress.
  And what I have noticed, the observation I want to make is that we 
have had a very slow but now more rapid deterioration of our system of 
checks and balances. This Congress, the Republican leadership in this 
Congress could care less about oversight. They would just cede the 
whole ball of wax to this administration. This administration has run 
amuck. That is how I really believe the American people feel. This 
administration has been allowed to go unchecked, unresponsive. No one 
asks any questions.
  You know what was really ironic, what was really interesting, was 
that it appears as though the outrage has built on the Republican side 
of the aisle, our good friends on the Republican side of the aisle. I 
noticed there was a whole lot of outrage that was cropping up all over 
during the Dubai Worlds Port deal. That sense of outrage on that side 
appeared to be in direct proportion to the reduction in the President's 
polling numbers. The lower his numbers got, the more outrage there 
appeared to be.
  I think that it probably would be a little bit more comforting for 
most Americans if the outrage was more consistent about Katrina and its 
aftermath, about the war in Iraq, about the deficit, about the debt, 
about the corruption, about the cronyism, and about the incompetence. 
This administration has veered so far off to the right. There is a 
stranglehold that the right has on the Republican leadership in this 
country. They are so out of the mainstream now.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Not the right, if I can correct my friend and 
colleague, but the far right.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The far right.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Not the traditional conservative Republicans that have 
made an enormous contribution to this country and whom we respect, but 
the radical neoconservatives.
  And it is so interesting now to hear from those that were there right 
after the inauguration talking about how at the first national Security 
Council meeting, Madam Speaker, there was discussion about war and 
going to Iraq and changing the regime and making it a national 
priority.

                              {time}  2330

  Again, if you want to get into competence, put aside whether you 
supported going into Iraq. I happen to be opposed because this 
administration in my view never made a case. But that is irrelevant. 
Talk about lack of competence.
  Let me refer you to a story that appeared in the New York Times about 
a month ago. It states that the American general in charge of training 
the new Iraqi military after Baghdad fell says the Bush administration 
strategy to use those forces to replace departing American troops was 
hobbled from its belated start by poor prewar planning and insufficient 
staffing and equipment. The account by Major General Paul Eaton on 
January 31, after 33 years in the Army, suggests that commanders in 
Iraq might by now have been much closer to President Bush's goal of 
withdrawing American forces if they had not lost so much time in the 
first year to begin building a capable Iraqi force.
  I am quoting a decorated American hero: ``We set out to man, train 
and equip an army for a country of 25 million with six men.'' Referring 
to General Eaton, he worked into the autumn with a revolving door of 
individual lone talent that would spend between 2 weeks and 2 months 
and never receive even half the 250 professional staff members he had 
been promised. The general's assessment of the problems he confronted 
was seconded by Walter Slocumb, sent by the Bush administration to 
Baghdad 6 months to serve as the senior civilian adviser on national 
security and defense.
  Again, Mr. Slocumb, an Under Secretary in this administration said, 
``I have to agree with General Eaton that it was hard to get the 
resources we needed out there. There was not a broad enough sense of 
urgency in Washington.''

[[Page 4179]]

  And today we hear this President, this Secretary of Defense, talking 
about the need to train Iraqis. Why didn't they listen to their own 
military commanders, specifically the one that was in charge. He was 
calling on them to do something and they turned a deaf ear, and we are 
still in Iraq today because of their incompetence.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, the real issue is this. We want 
to talk about listening to the military commanders on the ground. I 
heard time after time again about oh, yes, whenever our commanders tell 
us what we need, we will give it to them. Well, if it has anything to 
do with America, if it had anything to do with Hurricane Katrina, and 
all of America saw the video that Michael Brown, of all people, said, 
Mr. President, we think that the levees will break. We think that we 
need assistance immediately as it relates to evacuation. We need 
resources. Silence.
  Afterwards we have a partisan committee appointed by the majority, 
and they have findings with no solutions.
  Madam Speaker, I have a solution right here right now. The bottom 
line, if we were in the majority, and this is not make believe, this is 
a possibility, I believe those individuals who are not registered to 
vote are going to register to vote to bring about some sort of change 
from what is going on right now.
  I feel very good Members coming to the floor and sharing with 
American people, not just Democratic folk because if I wanted to just 
share with Democratic folk, I would send some sort of blast e-mail out 
to a Democratic list of individuals, or I would go down to the 
Democratic National Committee and say I just want to do a Webcast and I 
just want to talk to Democrats.
  No, Madam Speaker, we committed to the American people that we would 
uphold the Constitution and represent them, if they are Democrat, 
Independent, nonvoter, Republican, whatever the case may be. They are 
going to get representation. On this issue of national security and 
accountability, this administration has moved in an unprecedented way 
and is making history in the wrong areas, putting us in debt to foreign 
countries that we have never been in debt to, but putting us in debt to 
where it is going to be very difficult to get a plan to get out of 
debt.
  We on this side want to pay as we go. Mr. Ryan knows. Ms. Wasserman 
Schultz knows, as does Mr. Delahunt. Once upon a time and youthful 
indiscretions, hey, I was a little loose with the credit cards. I will 
put my hand up. It happens. But I will tell you this, when those 
creditors call your house, they disrespect you from hello. They do not 
say, ``May I speak to Mr. Meek.'' They say, ``May I speak to Kendrick. 
Is Kendrick home?'' That is what is going to happen.
  I want to talk about the third-party validators. Let me move my 
Republican rubber stamp; that is for later.
  When we talk about this debt, it is wide open. I challenge, I will 
say it again, I challenge any Member of the majority to come over and 
take a mike and tell us how this can be positive for our country, for 
us to be in debt to foreign nations.
  I am going to put Canada up here. They are our neighbor. They own 
$57.8 billion of our debt.
  Taiwan, toys are made there, and some American flags are made there, 
too. They own $71.3 billion of our debt.
  The U.K. has decided to take the training wheels off the Iraqi 
government and withdraw a number of their troops because they know it 
is time for the Iraqis to stand up for themselves. They own $223.2 
billion of our debt, and climbing.
  Folks want to get all concerned, I know some folks who fought wars 
before, Germany owns $6.57 billion of our debt.
  Korea owns, and I know that is something to our veterans, too, $66.5 
billion of our debt, U.S. debt they own.
  OPEC nations, and Mr. Delahunt, please name a few of the OPEC nations 
for us.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, there is Saudi Arabia. The gentleman remembers 
Saudi Arabia because 15 of the 19 hijackers were citizens of Saudi 
Arabia. Those are the 19 hijackers that were responsible for the deaths 
of in excess of 3,000 Americans. Saudi Arabia is part of OPEC, and how 
much money do we owe OPEC?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. We owe OPEC $67.8 billion, but let us not leave 
Iraq and Iran and other countries that we have concern about where our 
troops are getting sand in their teeth right now. Let us not leave them 
out of the OPEC nations and allies and people of interest.
  We have China, Red China, Communist China, China where U.S. workers 
are training their replacements in China to take their jobs, to make 
them unemployed. They own $249.8 billion of our debt.
  And Japan, the island of Japan, they own $682.8 billion of our debt.
  Now let me just say real quick to the Members, the Republicans have 
voted to put this on a credit card. They voted to put us into debt with 
interest. The Republican majority says we want to cut the budget in 
half by, and I do not know what the new number is, 2010, 2020. We have 
balanced the budget. The Democrats have balanced the budget. There is 
no other party in this House that can claim that something has been 
accomplished.
  The bottom line is when these countries call in the tab on the United 
States of America, what are they going to say? Are they going to say, 
sir, ma'am? Or are they going to say ``pay me.'' They are going to 
disrespect not only our seniors and others, but they are going to 
disrespect future generations.
  The bottom line is if the Republicans wanted to govern, they would 
have done it by now. They set up the atmosphere to allow this 
administration to be out of control.

                              {time}  2340

  What are the Democrats going to do? We are going to bring them back 
into control. We are going to make sure that we have accountability.
  We are going to make sure that folks come to the Hill and talk about 
why Osama Bin Laden is still running free. And without any great deal 
of fear of U.S. troops bearing down upon him once upon a time, why is 
he still out? Why is he still releasing audiotapes and videotapes and 
recommending books for the American people to read to understand him 
more.
  The bottom line, Madam Speaker, people like Osama Bin Laden long ago 
should have been tracked down and killed, period. That is just where it 
is and that is what we need to move towards.
  Mr. Ryan.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I appreciate that. And you know, as we are 
beginning to wrap up here, I think it is important to make this point, 
because I am sure you did, and you guys have experienced this too. 
There is a certain level of frustration that I have because I feel like 
our generation is getting dealt a pretty bad hand here.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Kicked in the teeth.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. As you just showed, we are mortgaging off our 
future. This is public debt held by China that has quadrupled. We went 
over that earlier in the evening. The debt limit has been increased by 
$3 trillion just since President Bush has been in, $450,984,800 and 
recently almost up to, almost up to $9 trillion in publicly held debt.
  The war, I mean, this administration is strapping our generation with 
debt, with war, with lack of investment, with increased tuition costs, 
increased energy costs, millions of our fellow citizens without health 
care. This administration and the Republican Congress is dealing our 
generation a pretty bad hand.
  And I started telling a lot of these student groups that come in and 
out of here, we go to schools and talk, hey, it is going to be our 
generation's responsibility, our life's work in this Congress, or 
wherever we may end up, to try to fix this mess. And that is exactly 
what it is.
  I yield to my friend.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. And what just keeps striking me 
about all of what we are saying is that it feels enveloped by the 
stranglehold

[[Page 4180]]

that is around this administration's neck by the far right and that 
ideology, that the stranglehold of the far right on this administration 
and this Republican leadership drives their incompetence, drives their 
decisions on Iraq, drives their decisions on Katrina, or lack thereof, 
drives their decisions on the deficit, on the debt.
  We talk about incompetence. We talk about corruption and cronyism and 
incompetence, but you cannot detangle, disentangle their incompetence 
and their ideology because the two are intertwined
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. You are 110 percent right, Ms. Wasserman 
Schultz.
  We can't say it enough. The bottom line is the message that we are 
giving out to the American people and to all the Republican majority: 
As a matter of fact, we don't need permission from the Republican 
majority to lead; we just need the numbers in this House to lead. And 
we are leading in many ways.
  We call the first play when it comes down to many of the pieces of 
legislation that move through this House of Representatives and 
bringing some level of accountability to it. Sometimes we are 
successful, Madam Speaker, in getting an amendment or two onto a piece 
of legislation because it is so abundantly clear the reason why they 
are useful to a piece of legislation. But why does it have to be 
abundantly clear? Why can't it just be good governance? Why can't it 
just be a bipartisan approach?
  I will tell you, and I commit, Mr. Ryan, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. 
Delahunt, when we get in the majority which--I believe the American 
people will start asking questions and will take action against those 
that are allowing this history in all the wrong ways to take place, and 
elect Democrats to be able to allow us to come here and run this House 
in the way that all the American people can be proud and feel 
accountable, we will not bow down to the strong special interests and 
say, well, wait, we have to take care of them and then we will take 
care of you. And when we come down to take care of you, we are going to 
question you about why you need this assistance. And so I think it is 
important that we go through that.
  As we make closing comments here, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I don't know 
if you closed but you can go ahead.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I will close just by saying this. It would be 
one thing, and the American people, I know, are understanding this and 
have an ever-growing understanding with every day that passes and they 
observe this administration and the Republican leadership here.
  It would be one thing if they had the confidence that, you know, they 
could just sub out the Republican individuals here and sub in another, 
a different Republican and get a more competent person. Unfortunately, 
it is not just that the individuals here are incompetent or that this 
administration is led by incompetence. It is that the ideology and the 
incompetence are so intertwined that it doesn't matter which Republican 
you swap in.
  We have seen the board lit up here where you have moderate 
Republicans, arms wrenched behind their back when they are trying to 
express what is supposedly their conscience, and instead they are 
forced to vote according to the ideological stranglehold that is around 
the neck of the Republican leadership and the Republican Party. And so 
it doesn't matter who you swap in and out. If the ideology doesn't 
change, which it is clearly not going to, then you will just get more 
the same. Just like you will have more of the same in swapping the 
individual, one individual for another in the White House, as the 
President did today, and what you would see if we didn't make the 
change that is so necessary with the leadership in this country.
  I appreciate the opportunity to join my colleagues here again in the 
30-something Working Group.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Delahunt, we are making closing comments, 
sir.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. You know what I also find disturbing and it really 
provokes a certain, let me use the word ``disgust.'' When the 
administration is criticized, particularly some individuals, rather 
than speak of the policy, they speak in a language that refers to 
``them'' or ``those'' or ``some,'' never identifying ``them'' or 
``those'' or ``some.'' It is a particular trait of Secretary Rumsfeld. 
Actually, in today's Washington Times, there is a story about a speech 
that the Secretary gave to military officers at the Army War College. 
Let me just quote from the story.
  ``Defense Secretary Rumsfeld delivered harsh words to war critics 
yesterday saying, `Some view al Qaeda operatives as victims.''' That is 
really unfortunate, because I would call on the Secretary to have the 
courage to stand up and identify who those ``some'' are. I dare say 
there is not a single Member in this House, Madam Speaker, that would 
view an al Qaeda operative as a victim. That is just simply 
disingenuous and certainly I would suggest demeans the office of the 
Secretary of Defense.
  Who are ``some,'' Madam Speaker? Not any American that I know, Madam 
Speaker. None. But if an American wants to criticize this war, this 
policy, this mismanagement by this Secretary of Defense, not only are 
they entitled to do it, Madam Speaker, they are obligated if they 
embrace everything that America stands for.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. As we wrap up, www.housedemocrats.gov/30something.

                              {time}  2350

  All of the charts, Madam Speaker, that we used here tonight are on 
this Web site for the Members to review and check out.
  And again, in closing, before my friend wraps this up, I think again 
this administration, this Republican Congress, has really put the next 
generation behind the 8-ball with the war, with the debt, with the 
income inequality that has not been at this level of separation of the 
richest to the poorest since before World War II, and all the other 
issues we talked about. And I think it is unfair to do that to the next 
generation.
  America has always been about making the next generation better. And, 
hopefully, with our advice and counsel, this Republican majority will 
take that and move forward.
  If I do not get a chance to tell you guys, Go Gators.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. Go Gators.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. To the distinguished gentleman from 
Massachusetts and also the gentleman from Ohio and the gentlewoman from 
Florida, I just want to say that our whole reason for coming to the 
floor is to be able to share with the Members what is happening right 
now under the Capitol dome, not what happened 6 months ago, but what is 
happening today or a couple of days ago, and about how we can correct 
ourselves.
  The other message is letting not only other Members know, Madam 
Speaker, but the American people know that we are ready to lead. I 
always use the football analogy by saying, I am going to buy Debbie 
Wasserman Schultz a mouthpiece because she is ready to go. And I can 
tell you, there are a number of people, Madam Speaker, who are ready to 
lead.
  Have you ever heard of ``lead or get out of the way''? We are willing 
to do that. Do you want to talk about plans? This is just one binder of 
plans. Do you want to talk about innovation? Do you want to talk about 
homeland security? Do you want to talk about Iraq? Do you want to talk 
about education? Do you want to talk about health care? Do you want to 
talk about respecting our veterans and giving them the health care that 
we said we would give them? Do you want to talk about military families 
being dealt with in a way that they should be dealt with; and the men 
and women who are in harm's way, equipment for our troops? Do you want 
to talk about those things?
  Well, other folks can talk about it. We are ready to act.
  The only thing that is stopping us right now, Madam Speaker, are a 
couple of votes on this floor. And we want the American people and we 
want the majority to know that we are not on their heels, we are in 
front of them on this issue. And that is the only thing that is 
stopping us.

[[Page 4181]]

  Now, either one of two things is going to happen. Either there are 
going to be some of our friends on the other side of the aisle saying, 
I am going to join with the Democrats and we are going to be bipartisan 
and we are going to do what we have to do on behalf of this country, or 
some individuals on the other side of the aisle, with all due respect 
to the gentlemen and the gentlewomen on the other side, are going to be 
unelected and we will lead. And we will show the American people, Madam 
Speaker, how we want to govern.
  With that, we want to thank the Democratic leadership for allowing us 
to be here.

                          ____________________