[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 813-819]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sires). The gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Meek) is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to come before the 
House again.
  The 30-Something Working Group, as you know, has been coming to the 
floor now in the 108th and 109th Congresses and now in the 110th 
Congress to share with the Members of the House and the American people 
information about what is happening here under the Capitol dome, and I 
am very excited to report that there is an awful lot that is happening. 
More work has been done as it relates to assisting the American people 
over the last couple of days or the last hours, which is historic in 
many ways, than happened in the entire 109th Congress. It was talked 
about, it was promised, but it never happened. So I am glad to come to 
the floor with my colleagues who will be joining me shortly.
  I think it is very important, Mr. Speaker, to not only commend those 
that have been consistent on message, not only message, but action. I 
can tell you that hearing my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, 
you would think that they have been in the minority for the last 14 or 
16 years, because they sound like all of a sudden they are ready to do 
something about the problems that are facing this country.
  I can tell you also, Mr. Speaker, that the fact is that we moved in 
the right direction in securing this country and passing the 9/11 
Commission recommendations, and, like we promised, Mr. Speaker, in the 
109th Congress, the last Congress, we worked in a bipartisan way. When 
we passed that piece of legislation, we had not only overwhelming, full 
support from the Democratic side of the aisle but a high number of 
Republican Members joined Democratic Members in voting for those 
recommendations to be placed into law pass this House.
  Today is a very historic, very emotional time for those of us that 
fought on behalf of Americans that punch in and punch out every day to 
be able to receive a hike in the minimum wage to $7.25. Again, we said 
we would work in a bipartisan way along with our Republican colleagues, 
and over 300 individuals voted for, including a number of Republicans, 
I think 80 or 81 Republicans, joined the entire Democratic Caucus who 
voted in the affirmative for an increase in the minimum wage to give 
the American worker a well-overdue raise. That will move on to the 
Senate and hopefully to the President's desk.
  I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, to look at the way we have 
moved in the right direction on ethics, saying we are willing to hold 
this House to standards that the American people would like for us to 
be held to and to also have a committee that will review any question 
of conduct as it relates to any Member of the House and that will 
consider that in a bipartisan way and report back to the appropriate 
overseers of the House here so that people know that we have checks and 
balances.
  Just mentioning those three items, Mr. Speaker, and looking at how 
Republicans have voted with Democrats

[[Page 814]]

because we have taken the lead to bring these issues to the floor, it 
is a perfect example of what we talked about for 3 years here on this 
floor. The good thing that I like about what we talk about and then 
what we do is the fact that we follow through, Mr. Speaker, on what we 
have shared, not only with the Members on the majority and the minority 
side, now the Democratic majority side, but what we would do if given 
the opportunity. I think the Members should pay very close attention, 
because the American people responded in a very positive way.
  It has been said there will be mistakes made, and it will be painful 
in some instances when we look at PAYGO regulations that we have 
imposed on ourselves. That is another initiative that passed this 
floor, that we will not start a program or send money out of the door 
of the U.S. House of Representatives unless we can show how we can pay 
for it.
  We know there are some war issues there and some other issues, but as 
it relates to what we call here on the floor, Mr. Speaker, regular 
order, where a Member files a bill and says I want to do X, Y and Z, 
and don't worry about it, we will borrow it from a number of the 
countries I have identified in the past that own a piece of the 
American apple pie. As we continue to move on, Mr. Delahunt, we want to 
start peeling these numbers off, showing how America is now starting to 
make itself whole as we start to pass policy.
  I think it is also very, very important, Mr. Speaker, to note that 
there will be a lot of things said on this floor. That has been the 
case since the beginning of the country. That is a good part of our 
democracy. Members can come to the floor and say what they wish to say. 
They are representing their constituents back home, and their 
constituents every 2 years have an opportunity to vote if they want 
them to return back.
  Mr. Delahunt, before I yield to you, I guess I would just like to put 
a word of caution out there. To those who feel they can come to this 
floor of the People's House and share information, to make an argument 
or an action or inaction sound appropriate, now, I know many of my 
friends on the other side, and I do call them friends, because we all 
are friends, we see each other, but we weren't elected to come up here 
and pat each other on the back and say ``I am more dedicated to you 
than I am to the folks back home or the American people.'' I will say 
this. We are all in the spirit of doing the right thing.
  But I just want to caution, because I think what got the Republican 
majority in the 109th Congress and the Congresses before that in 
trouble was the fact that there was more allegiance to the Republican 
leadership.
  When we start talking about these bipartisan bills, Mr. Delahunt, 
which I would like to do, I stood here at this podium, this mike on 
this floor a similar night several months ago, starting a couple of 
years ago, and said bipartisanship is only allowed if the majority 
allows it.
  I didn't have a problem with the frontline or the everyday Republican 
Member of this Congress. I had a problem with the Republican leadership 
that led their caucus in the direction of special interests and in the 
direction opposite of what the American people said they wanted.
  So what we are doing now is we are moving in the direction the 
American people wanted. They said they wanted ethics. We voted for it 
on the floor. We received Republican votes on those issues.
  The American people said they wanted to raise the minimum wage. We 
voted here on this floor, and 80 or 81 Republican Members voted saying 
that they support it.
  We voted to implement all of the 9/11 recommendations. We said that 
we would do it. Republicans on that side followed suit, many of them, 
and voted to secure America.
  So when we move the embryonic stem cell legislation and prescription 
drugs, all of these issues are based on leadership. We start talking 
about a bipartisan spirit, and we will let the record, Mr. Ryan and Mr. 
Delahunt, reflect our intentions and what we want to do.
  Yes, we are going to have some partisan votes in this House. But 
these are major issues. I don't care what anyone, any pundit, says, 
some Member going back home saying ``I voted against that.'' It is 
going to be hard for them to say they voted against the person that is 
making $5.15 an hour. ``You voted against that? Oh, you are real tough, 
Congressman.'' Goodness gracious. These are people who can't even 
afford to buy gas.
  But we are not going to focus on that, Mr. Speaker. We are going to 
focus on the 80-plus Republicans and the entire Democratic Caucus that 
voted to give the American people a raise.
  Mr. Delahunt, Uncle Bill, we are so happy, sir, that you are a part 
of the 30-Something Working Group. We are so happy that this is your 
inaugural night in the 110th Congress, where we are in the majority, 
your joining us here on this floor.
  We talked about your contributions last night. We said that we have a 
Medicare recipient within our midst. We talked about individuals that 
are drawing down on one of the pensions that maybe you received in your 
long career of public service. But we appreciate the fact that you are 
continuing, and we said we will continue our commitment.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Long, long, long years.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, again, I am honored to be here. I heard that last 
evening my name was mentioned here in the House, and I presume that it 
was mentioned in a way that was kind and generous to a senior citizen, 
a senior citizen that has the Medicare card to prove that.
  Talking about Medicare, we are going to address Medicare in this 
session of Congress, and we are going to do something about that so-
called prescription drug benefit program that was passed over the 
objections of almost every Democrat and a few courageous Republicans 
several years ago. Because as you know, Mr. Meek, and you know, Tim 
Ryan, there was a provision in that particular legislation that 
prohibited the Medicare Trust Fund from negotiating with the large 
pharmaceutical companies for a discount.
  In other words, whoever is the director of the Medicare Trust Fund 
can't go into a room and sit down with the drug companies and say, 
``Let's discuss a fair price, because we are going to purchase in large 
quantities prescription drug benefits,'' for people like myself, ``and 
we are going to effect real savings, like they do in the Veterans 
Administration.''
  I have seen estimates of savings that range from 30 to 80 percent on 
drugs where discounts could be made available and effected, drugs that 
save the lives of people and enhance the quality of life for those of 
us who have reached the golden years.
  It is extraordinary in terms of helping people who have worked hard 
all their lives from not having to make those tough choices between 
food and heat, or air conditioning in the case of Mr. Meek and the 
young lady who just became the chair of a very powerful subcommittee 
here in the House, who is now known as Cardinal Wasserman Schultz.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. She is a rabbi.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I guess. I am just using a term that we often use here. 
But she is certainly dressed like a cardinal this evening.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you, Mr. Delahunt.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. But I have to tell you, I am really proud of the work 
that your generation has done over the course of the 109th Congress to 
bring home that message to the American people. You did it effectively. 
You are helping my generation and you have our profound gratitude. 
Because it was clear the message that the three of you and other 
colleagues of ours in the Democratic Caucus spoke to over the course of 
2 years resonated with the American people.
  I am so proud of each and every one of you. Congratulations. I think 
we can all share great pride in what has been accomplished since we 
took our oath of office just a week ago. It is extraordinary. There is 
a new tone.

[[Page 815]]

  You know what is particularly gratifying to me is to see so many of 
our colleagues, our Republican colleagues, our good friends, our dear 
friends, join with us in really moving forward an agenda that benefits 
all Americans.

                              {time}  1930

  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. To the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I think maybe I should yield to the gentleman from Ohio 
because he wants to say something.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. You are the cardinal, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
  WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. No, that is okay. I defer to the senior Member.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I think for those watching we have to explain what the 
term cardinal means, in terms of a new position.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. No, we really don't.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Could you amplify on that, Mr. Ryan?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I would be happy to. In the Appropriations 
Committee, I think we have now maybe 11 or 12 subcommittees, and the 
chairs of the subcommittees are referred to in the body as cardinals. 
Well, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, as the cardinal and the chair, carries the 
gavel for the Legislative Appropriations Subcommittee. So we are very, 
very proud of our 30-Something member.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Ratified by the Democratic Caucus.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Ratified by the Democratic Caucus.
  But what I think is interesting about all of this is that when you 
look at today we passed the minimum wage bill. Historic. Look at what 
we have been able to do with the 9/11 Commission report; what we were 
able to do with ethics reform; what we are going to do with negotiating 
drug prices; what we are going to do with stem cell research. When you 
look at what will be done in just a few weeks, the light of government 
and the power of government over the past 10, 12 years has been used 
really to take and help the top 1 percent of the people in the country, 
whether it was for tax cuts for millionaires or corporate welfare for 
oil companies or energy companies, whether it was for corporate welfare 
for the pharmaceutical industry, but the resources and the energy of 
this body were being used and the levers of government were being used 
to help that very small percentile of the American people who had the 
ability to invest in stocks, who have the ability to move their 
investments abroad to China and other countries and ship their goods 
back here and who take advantage of the tax cuts and make money off of 
corporate welfare. They just benefitted in every single way.
  But if you look at what we have done and what we are going to do in 
the next couple of days, we raised the minimum wage, which will affect 
millions of Americans, 3\1/2\ million women and children, lifting them 
out of poverty. And you can pull all the stats you want, but the bottom 
line is that people who make minimum wage are going to make more now in 
the United States of America. And that is not saying we have done 
anything tremendous. That should have been done years ago.
  When you look at what we are going to do with student loans, cutting 
the rates for student loans in half for both students and parents, 
loans that have come out. Cut the interest rate in half. That will save 
the average person who takes out a loan $5,000 over the course of the 
loan.
  So now you have an increase in the minimum wage, now you have a 
reduced loan payment because the interest rate has been cut in half and 
you are going to save money on that, and then, if you are parents or 
grandparents, like Mr. Delahunt, and qualify for Medicare, there is 
going to be less money out of your pocket to spend on prescription 
drugs because we are going to use the ability and the power of this 
program to reduce the cost of drugs for our senior citizens.
  I will be happy to yield, but just in those three things, those three 
areas, Mr. Delahunt, average people are going to benefit, and we have 
only been here 2 weeks.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Right. And I look forward to the proposal that will 
reduce the interest on student loans, because I know so many families 
in my district back in the South Shore of Boston and Cape Cod and the 
islands, where the families and specifically the students themselves 
take a loan and find themselves graduating from college with a debt, on 
the average, of approximately $20,000. We know that over time they are 
catching up for a significant number of years, preventing them from 
putting that bonus that they receive at the end of the year for a down 
payment on a home to ensure their future or maybe just putting it into 
an IRA.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And the time will come, as you have proven.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. And it comes real quick.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. What I thought was funny today, or yesterday, in 
one of the local Capitol Hill newspapers, Roll Call or The Hill, the 
financial sector, the folks who lend money to the students were 
squawking, and it was blatant right in the article, because they are 
going to have reduced profits. Well, I am sorry, we are not here to 
make sure that you get good profits. We are here to make sure that 
students in the United States of America can afford to go to college 
and that they can go out and make good profits. This is not an 
enterprise here for you to tap into and let the money come shooting 
out.
  And I am happy to yield to my colleague, Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. And I want to go back to the 
minimum wage for just a second, because this is the second day now that 
we have had the opportunity to watch Speaker Pelosi preside over our 
legislation that is passing out of the House of Representatives with 
the speed that we want, which should demonstrate to the American people 
that we share their priorities.
  Yesterday was H.R. 1. Today was H.R. 2. And one of the things that, 
combined with the Six in 2006 agenda and our commitment to move this 
country in a new direction, that she committed to on our behalf was 
bipartisanship and making sure that this is the most inclusive 
bipartisan House of Representatives in history. And what I thought was 
the most emblematic of that and that was really telling of the 
difference between the way we are running this institution versus the 
way the Republican leadership ran it is that I looked up on that board 
with the vote tally at the end, and this is the first opportunity that 
we have had in the time that I have been here, in 10 years, as the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller) indicated, the first opportunity 
we have had to have a straight up-or-down, clean vote on the minimum 
wage. The first chance.
  Before, we had to go through all this rigmarole and shenanigans, and 
we had to do motions to recommit and use procedural moves in both the 
Appropriations Committee and on this floor to get remotely close to a 
vote on the minimum wage. And you know how in the last Congress, in the 
109th, when we would come on the floor as the 30-Something Working 
Group and we would lament the antics of the Republican leadership and 
the arm-twisting that they did, and even on those procedural motions 
where we were trying to get a vote even close to the minimum wage, they 
would wrench the arms of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
behind their backs and make them vote ``no.''
  Well, what was the vote today? That vote on H.R. 2, on the minimum 
wage, there were 201 Members more that voted ``yes'' than voted ``no''. 
There was a 201 vote difference. Now, we have fewer than a 201 vote 
margin here. We are in the majority, but our majority is about 30 or 
32. It is not 201. So look at what bipartisanship and inclusiveness 
does. And when you are finally allowed a free vote, a straight up-or-
down vote on the American people's priorities, we had a huge bipartisan 
margin to increase the minimum wage. And that is beautiful. That is 
what democracy is all about.
  Now, without violating rules and directly addressing the Speaker, it 
is so refreshing to see my good friend from Florida in the Chair 
tonight, and that

[[Page 816]]

is about as close as I will come to naming the gentleman from Florida, 
but I really was so gratified to watch us begin to go through the Six 
in 2006 agenda and finally deal with the priorities of the American 
people.
  Lastly, Mr. Delahunt, I want to thank you for your kind words. The 
thing that makes me so humble and proud and excited about the 
opportunity that I have to chair a subcommittee in appropriations is, 
if you recall, Speaker Pelosi last week, when she took the gavel from 
the gentleman from Ohio, she talked about how she was able to bust 
through the marble ceiling. And the wonderful thing about Speaker 
Pelosi is that when she did it, like the leader that she is, she took 
other people with her. She didn't just bust through it for herself. Her 
busting through the marble ceiling gave so many of us, the diversity of 
this caucus, an opportunity to be a participant in making the world a 
better place for the American people.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. And hope.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And hope.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. And I believe there is a palpable sense of optimism for 
the first time. And I think much of it is predicated on that 
bipartisanship that we are talking about that was reflected in that 
vote.
  Now, partisanship is good in the sense that there is a diversity of 
ideas, and out of that debate on ideas comes sound public policy.
  We have had debate after debate, 10 years' worth of debate on the 
minimum wage. Workers in this country have been waiting for this 
moment, even if they make more than the minimum wage, because it sends 
a message that finally the U.S. Congress is listening to them. And so 
there is hope.
  And it is not just Democrats. As all of you have indicated, there was 
a significant minority of Republicans who voted for it. So I think, not 
only should we be proud, but I think the American people should begin 
to understand that something is happening. Something good is happening, 
Mr. Speaker, and it is going to take time. It is not going to be all 
roses. There will be speed bumps. But finally we are turning into a new 
direction. And I know that every Member on the Democratic side is 
excited about working with our Republican colleagues to advance the 
agenda that will truly impact the lives of most American families.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Of course.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I think the good part about this whole first 100 
hours and what we have been able to do, Mr. Speaker, is that we are 
making some structural changes. We are not petering around the edges. I 
think the people out there that wanted us to be bold, they are seeing 
bold. The minimum wage, now, obviously it hasn't been done in 10 or 12 
years, since 1997, so it is bold.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Tim, could we go back? And, again, I promise I won't 
interrupt. I know sometimes I have a tendency to do that.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We like your passion.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. But I have to tell you, the fact that one of the first 
orders of business was to institute the so-called PAYGO rules, which 
means we recognize that there is a deficit out there that has to be 
addressed, it is not going to be easy. I know the American people 
understand that. But again, it goes back to that optimism and that hope 
that is beginning to emerge.
  Yes, it is going to be tough, but we are a resilient people. We are a 
tough people. And we might have to make some sacrifices, but we are 
going to get back to the time where the deficit and the national debt 
was declining dramatically and our national economy was booming and the 
disparity in this country between those that have and those that don't 
have was narrowing. Narrowing, Mr. Speaker.
  So the issue of inequality of income and wealth will be addressed. It 
will be addressed, and we can do it. We can do it together. We can do 
it in a bipartisan fashion because the Members of this Congress, I 
believe, have heard loud and clear this past November from the American 
people.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I would reclaim my time, but I forgot what I was 
going to say. So I will yield to my friend from Miami.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I hate when that happens.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Who we haven't heard from in 20 minutes. We are all 
excited to hear what you have to say.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. We are waiting.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. On the edge of our seat.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Want me to yield back to you, Mr. Ryan? Maybe 
you can remember. Are you having a senior moment?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I am having a senior moment.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Okay. A 33-year-old senior moment.
  I just wanted to mention something real quick that I think is 
important.

                              {time}  1945

  There is going to be a lot of talk tomorrow. We are going to do some 
good legislation. We have stem cell research that is coming up, and we 
have negotiating as it relates to prescription drugs is coming up 
before the weekend. Something that is going to be common now, was 
uncommon in the 109th Congress, we are actually going to work a 5-day 
work week or a 4-day work week as it relates to the congressional 
calendar.
  But I just want to mention something. I don't want us to leave this 
floor tonight unless we have an opportunity to talk about what the 
President's going to talk about an hour or so from now. I think it is 
important. I have served, Mr. Ryan and I have served on Armed Services 
in the last two Congresses; and you, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, have 
served here in the last Congress and now this Congress at war.
  Mr. Delahunt, you were here when this House voted to give the 
President authority to go or not, what have you. And now we are after 
the election in November, the American people, everyone thought, Mr. 
Speaker, that the election was going to be about the economy. They 
thought it was going to be about health care. They thought it was going 
to be about whatever the issue may be. But it was about Iraq, and it 
was about the decisions that were made, and the lack thereof, out of 
this Congress of asking the questions and oversight.
  Now what is going to happen, Members, you are going to have the Armed 
Services Committee, you are going to have the Defense Appropriations 
Committee, you are going to have the Government Operations Committee, 
you are going to have a number of committees that have oversight 
responsibility on the committee level, providing the oversight for this 
war.
  Now the President is going to come out tonight and he is going to 
ask, he is going to say, I call it an escalation, he calls it something 
else, of 20,000 new troops on the ground, boots on the ground. 3,017 
men and women are no longer with us tonight; and we appreciate their 
honor, we appreciate their service to the country. We have several 
thousand, over 15,000, who have been injured and that are a part of our 
medical veterans programs throughout this country. Some are learning 
how to walk now. Many of our injuries come by what we call IEDs, 
improvised explosive devices.
  Many of the troops, as we look at, you look at your local television 
station, I know you see it in Ohio. I know you see it in Massachusetts. 
We see it in South Florida. We even see it here in Washington, DC. 
There was a new reserve unit that just left in Maryland. And I was 
watching the interview, and I think about when I have to travel as a 
Congressman, you know, my family's up here, I go back to the District. 
You know, that is 2 or 3 days I am away from my family. I say, oh, my 
goodness, I miss the kids. Imagine if I was leaving for 15 months for 
the second or third time. Just imagine that. How much of, how my kids 
would be taken away, you know. They won't get what they need from me. 
Just thinking about it, I can't help but get a little emotional when 
you think about this kind of thing.
  And we know that they are being sent to do what, secure Iraq. So they

[[Page 817]]

are on a security mission. They are not there to say, well, you know, 
we are here to provide technical assistance. No, they are there to 
armor up.
  I have been there twice. Mr. Ryan, we went together. And when they go 
out the gates of that base in Mosul or Baghdad or Tikrit, they may not 
come back.
  Now we know it is a volunteer force and we know all of that. But I 
just want to say, Mr. Speaker, this has great gravity tonight, and I am 
so glad that I am hearing voices out of this Congress saying, we said 
during the campaign and during the election season, we will not defund 
the troops that are on the ground.
  But no one, including the President, including the Iraq Study 
Commission, including all of the folks, General Colin Powell, I mean, 
General Colin Powell said it is a civil war going on, and if we send 
additional troops into a civil war it is the wrong thing to do. It is 
right here.
  So if the Republicans or the President wants to say when someone is 
smart or when someone is credible, when they are carrying their 
message, here is a man that has served, Secretary of State, General, 
four-star, Joint Chiefs of Staff, well respected in this country, along 
with a number of other folks that are out there. So I think, Mr. 
Speaker, it is important that we shed light on this.
  I know Mr. Delahunt has an hour that he does on a weekly basis on 
Iraq. But, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I think it is time, no matter what, 
if you are a Democrat or a Republican, to be able to say, listen, I 
just came from the election, especially to Members that are new to the 
Congress, either in the Senate or in the House, and they heard what the 
American people had to say.
  So, the President, I think, and this democracy needs to really speak 
up and say, hey, listen, we hear what you are saying. We know what the 
study group has said. But it seems like you are kind of out there by 
yourself.
  Because, one other thing I just want to add and then I am going to be 
quiet probably for another 20 minutes, like Mr. Delahunt identified, is 
the fact that we see how many troops that have died.
  All right, let's look at the U.S. contractors, these mercenaries we 
have out there, that are playing a role of when these countries are 
pulling out, Great Britain, they are out. They are coming out this 
year. A number of the other, quote, unquote, allies are pulling out of 
Iraq. So before we even get an opportunity to light the bulbs up in the 
committee room and start asking the questions about what has been going 
on over at the Department of Defense since everything has been 
classified and secret and no one has come and testified in front of 
these committees of jurisdiction, the President now wants to say, let's 
send 20,000 troops.
  These are not new troops. These are individuals that are what we call 
a back draft. Folks want to leave. We have folks signing checks, giving 
them $40,000 to stay on. Are you going to go back to wherever you came 
from where the poverty is? Here is 40 grand. Take it to your family. 
Sign up for another 3 years. That is what we are talking about here.
  And I am seeing these individuals that are hired, that are former 
military, by these companies, they are dying. When we went to the 
hospital over in Germany, there were contract fighters that carry out 
those convoys sitting there without a leg, Mr. Speaker. No one is 
thinking about these individuals because they are not wearing a U.S. 
uniform. They are veterans, and they want to work for these private 
contracting companies. So there is a lot of loss of life going on here, 
leave alone what could be happening with members of the CIA that we 
would never know how many of those individuals that have died in this 
conflict. So we have to bring the oversight management. I am saying 
that on the side of common sense.
  I yield to any Member that wishes to pick up from this point, but it 
must be addressed.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I appreciate my friend from Florida, and I have, it is 
getting late for me and I am going to have to excuse myself for the 
remaining 15 minutes. But I want to pick up on something that you just 
referenced, and that is the American people have to understand that we 
are now alone. We are now alone with this issue.
  Just this past week there was a report in the British press that the 
withdrawal of the troops from the United Kingdom would not be slowed. 
There are no plans on the part of the British, or anyone else, any 
other nation, state on this planet, to introduce additional troops as 
part of this escalation. We are alone. There is no more coalition, if 
there was ever one to begin with, other than in name only.
  America is now alone, because the rest of the world has concluded 
that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake, a mistake for reasons that I 
think we all know but are not going to list them here today.
  But let's remember this, Mr. Speaker. In the past 6 or 7 months, 
there was a poll that was commissioned by our own Department of State, 
and the results were painful because this was the conclusion on two 
questions. The first question was, do you believe it is better for 
American troops to leave? This was asked in a way that presumably was 
done in a survey that was accurate. It was commissioned by our own 
Department of State. And 70 percent of the Iraqi people said, yes, we 
would be better off if the American troops left.
  But what was more disturbing and painful was that in excess of 60 
percent of the Iraqi people, according to this poll, said that it was 
okay to kill a member of the American military.
  What are we fighting for now? What are we fighting for? Saddam 
Hussein is gone. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There were 
never any links to al Qaeda.
  What have we accomplished? Well, I dare say that what we have done is 
we have managed to create an even stronger Iran that has a relationship 
with Iraq, that includes all kinds of agreements, including a military 
cooperation agreement between the government of Iraq and the government 
of Iran. Does anyone ever talk about that? Can anyone explain to me 
what the terms of that agreement are?
  What are we fighting for? What are we fighting for?
  And, with that, I yield to the gentlewoman and ask to be excused.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you to my good friend.
  Before you are excused, though, I do want to tell you, you were so 
kind in your words about the three of us and you have been so helpful 
to us over the last 2 years and joining us here night after night on 
the floor. But, quite honestly, I really want to commend you on your 
eloquence and your commitment on this issue in particular. You have 
been one of the key leaders of the Out of Iraq Caucus. You have kept 
this caucus focused on those issues that are incredibly important.
  As my good friend, the gentleman from Florida, indicated in his 
remarks earlier, one of the major reasons that we were returned to the 
majority of this institution is because of how strongly people feel 
about the situation with the war in Iraq. And so thank you very much 
for helping with that effort.
  With that having been said, one of the things that I think that is 
going to be important in about an hour from now for the American people 
to note when the President makes his remarks to the Nation is that what 
we heard the President say repeatedly, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Meek, over and 
over again over the last several years, was that his strategy was going 
to be tied to the advice from his military leaders; that he was going 
to listen to the generals; that he was going to take a page from their 
book, take their lead, use whatever expression is applicable.
  But I guess he was just kidding, or maybe he was just saying that he 
meant that until he wasn't hearing what he wanted to hear. Because at 
the point that his belief in the direction that we should be going in 
Iraq departed or parted company with the advice of his military 
leadership, that is the point that he decided to stop listening to 
them. We have now shifted the military leadership in Iraq. And I 
certainly realize that, particularly in a democracy, there is going to 
be a wide range of opinions even among military

[[Page 818]]

leaders. But the current military leadership that President Bush has 
brought in does support the strategy and the direction that he is 
planning on taking America tonight and in this war on Iraq. And it is 
just astonishing that this continues the pattern of this 
administration, where they ask their questions, or make statements and 
pursue a goal, an agenda and surround themselves only with people who 
agree with them.
  I just, one of the things that I know we are going to hear from the 
President tonight is a caution that victory, if we achieve it, won't be 
similar to other military victories. He will talk about, as opposed to 
the Mission Accomplished banner that was emblazoned over his head on 
the deck of a battleship, he will caution us tonight apparently that 
that is not what victory will look like if we ever achieve it in Iraq.

                              {time}  2000

  It will not be perfect, and that the outcome will not be traditional. 
Well, it sure will not. It is hard to imagine that we are ever going to 
achieve a semblance of victory. One of the things that we intend on 
doing as Democrats and aggressively doing is holding this 
administration accountable. The question has been asked repeatedly by 
commentators and by our friends on the other side of the aisle.
  There has been a question mark about whether or not Democrats will 
have the nerve to actually address the issue of funding these 
additional troops. And Speaker Pelosi has talked about how we 
absolutely are committed and will continue to be supportive with 
funding and every other measure of support for the troops that are 
there.
  There is no question we would never pull the rug out from under the 
troops that are there fighting on behalf of America and fighting on 
behalf of democracy. But we absolutely should question this strategy, 
which is completely contrary to the goals and desires of the American 
people, and which is contrary to the advice of the military leadership.
  There is no question, I believe there is no question about Democrats' 
nerve; no question about whether we plan on holding the administration 
accountable, which hasn't occurred in years. There has been, like you 
said, no opportunity to question the administration's choices and 
direction on Iraq; no opportunity to actually cast a vote on whether 
this new direction would receive and was worthy of funding.
  I truly believe that is an opportunity that we will be having and 
that we should have and that we should accept, because the American 
people elected us to make bold decisions and make sure that we can move 
this country in a new direction, domestically and in terms of our 
foreign and military policy. I look forward to finally being able to 
reassert this institution, the United States House of Representatives' 
role in the system of checks and balances, because the unitary 
philosophy the executive branch in this administration supports is 
wholly contrary to the Constitution.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I appreciate your points. One of the things that we 
now expressed in the last Congress was having these third-party 
validators.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is right.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. This is not just Democrats. I have not talked to a 
Democrat yet who thinks that escalating this war is a good idea, and 
our new direction is not just continuing down the same war with more 
troops. But I just want to share a few quotes that I did some research 
on and pulled out that I think are indicative of what's going on here.
  Colin Powell, as my friend from Florida said earlier, quote: I am not 
persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purposes of 
suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work. 
That is Colin Powell, who basically led us into this mess that we are 
in.
  Oliver North said, quote: A surge, or targeted increase in U.S. troop 
strength, for whatever the politicians want to call dispatching more 
combat troops to Iraq, isn't the answer. Adding more trainers and 
helping the Iraqis to help themselves is. Sending more U.S. combat 
troops is simply sending more targets. That is Oliver North. I found 
that in Human Events online.
  Major General Don Shepherd, United States Air Force retired: I would 
not even consider increasing troop strength in Iraq. Shepherd, who 
works as a CNN military analyst, offered this analysis of what should 
be done next after he was briefed by members of the Iraqi Study Group. 
He wrote, quote: I would not even consider, again, I would not even 
consider increasing troop strength.
  And I will give you one more, as we are going through this. Michael 
Vickers, former Special Forces officer, who said the security situation 
is inextricably linked to politics. If you can solve some of the Iraqi 
political problems, the security situation becomes manageable.
  If you cannot, all the forces in the world aren't going to change 
that, and I found that on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer on PBS of 
December 12 of 2006.
  So this is coming from Republicans. This is coming from Democrats. 
This is coming from people all over the country.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, I just get so excited whenever you do 
your own research, and you find quotes and all.
  But I can tell you what's important here is to make sure that we 
follow through on what we told the American people. The American people 
voted for representation, and I am not just talking about proud 
Democrats, Republicans, independents, some young people that voted for 
the first time in their lives because they believe that there will be 
balance in this democracy that we call on.
  So many of the issues that we talk about here, and so many issues 
that are within our first 100 hours that we want to work on, Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz, and that we said we would do in our Six in 2006 
plan, the American people said they were for it overwhelmingly.
  We have to be able to understand here in this House that we would 
carry out what we said would do. Now that is a paradigm shift here in 
this U.S. House. A lot has been said. Very little has been done, but we 
are moving in that direction.
  I was in a meeting earlier today and saying that we need an 
escalation in the truth and not the troops. We need an escalation in 
the truth and not the troops.
  The truth is that the U.K. is pulling 3,000 troops out by May. The 
truth is, several other countries that are, quote/unquote, allies in 
Iraq, they are paying ransom for their troops that are captured by 
insurgents, because of the lack of security there. The truth very well 
may be, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Ryan and Members, the President is 
trying to say, well, I am going to send this in light of security, what 
have you.
  Security missions to secure Iraq. What does that mean? Troops having 
to go out on patrol. What does that mean? IEDs, improvised explosive 
devices that will be on those roads. What does that mean? Fifteen 
months away from your family once again on the second or third 
deployment. What does that mean also when you look at the overall two 
theaters that we have now? Over 1.4 million troops, U.S. troops, have 
gone into theater over and over again.
  What is our situation right now? Two-thirds of our military not ready 
to move as it relates to readiness if something was to happen. We have 
one-third that is ready. I am not giving out national secrets. You can 
read this in the newspaper.
  So what's our job is to govern. What's also our job is to make sure 
that we provide oversight. That is what this U.S. House is all about. 
We're the People's House. You have to be elected to get here. One 
person said, in the Constitution, you can appoint a speaker, whatever 
the case may be, but mainly there is an election if a Member was to 
say, I no longer want to serve, whatever that reason may be.
  Saying all of that, I am glad we touched on the issue. I think it is 
important because I know there will be a lot of talk tomorrow, because 
the

[[Page 819]]

President is the Commander in Chief. We committed during the election, 
when I say we, those of us that are in the majority, that we will not 
leave, that we will have the troops back, and we will not leave them 
underfunded, and that we will not pull the funding of the troops that 
are in Iraq now.
  No one, I mean, no one, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, no one, I want to say 
this again, not even the bipartisan study commission, none of them, 
endorsed what the President is talking about right now.
  The President had a meeting with some folks that he has been having a 
meeting with for the last 6-plus years, having a meeting with the same 
people, having the same input, the same advisors, and it is a merry-go-
round of trust. I don't know if it is, you know, in all due respect to 
the folks that are making the decisions, I don't know if new people are 
being put into this circle of trust of saying, well, you know, maybe if 
I haven't been given good advice in the past, maybe I need to bring 
some different folks in to give me some input.
  No, the only thing that happens in this circle of trust within the 
Bush administration is that sometimes people get off and they write a 
book about how bad the circle of trust was. That is what's happening.
  Now, Donald Rumsfeld was the last one to jump off the merry-go-round. 
We don't know what he is going to say, but I think he is going to take 
it all the way, and he is not going to say anything at all. But there 
are a lot of bad decisions that have been made, and if you disagree 
within the circle of trust, you are out.
  So I want the American people, I want the Members to pay very close 
attention, and, I am talking to my Republican friends as well as my 
Democratic friends, that we have the leader up and represent the 
American people on this issue as it relates to this escalation in 
troops. We need an escalation in the truth and not the troops, and that 
is where it is right now.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I know our good friend from Rhode Island wants 
to talk about H.R. 3, which we will be considering tomorrow. But the 
Iraq Study Group, which you briefly touched on a few minutes ago. It is 
amazing how that just almost has faded into oblivion; that their 
recommendations, the number of months they worked, the expertise that 
was put together, led by former Secretary of State Mr. Baker and Mr. 
Hamilton, very well respected.
  Nowhere in their recommendations, am I right, was there an escalation 
of troops. Was there any indication in the Iraq Study Group, who 
arguably is the finest group of experts that could have been put 
together to make recommendations, nowhere in there was an escalation of 
troops. At least from what I noticed, and you can correct me if I am 
wrong, the President essentially just dismissed their recommendation 
and moved on and went in the direction that he chose to go.
  I would like to take this opportunity to yield to my good friend, to 
our good friend, the gentleman from Rhode Island, because we are 
dealing with an important piece of legislation tomorrow that has 
already been put on the President's desk once. And as part of the new 
direction for our Six in 2006 agenda, we are going to put it on his 
desk again, because maybe he will get it right a second time.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. I want to thank the gentlelady, and before I begin on 
my comments on H.R. 3, the stem cell research enhancement act, I want 
to just thank my colleagues for their important comments on Iraq and 
the direction that the Iraq war has taken and the failed policy that we 
have seen in Iraq and the strain that it has put on the families of 
soldiers, the soldiers themselves. Clearly, we need a change in 
direction in America. That is what the American people expect.
  This 100 hours agenda, obviously, is an important topic. I rise in 
strong support of the 100 hours agenda. As a four-term Member of 
Congress, it has been exhilarating for me to return to Washington and 
tackle the issues of the American people which have long been ignored. 
I am so proud to be a part of this new direction and a Member of this 
Chamber.
  As we prepare for the embryonic stem cell research debate which will 
take place tomorrow, I am reminded that one of the primary reasons I 
ran for Congress, which was to make a positive difference in people's 
lives. The 110th Congress is being ushered in with a tremendous sense 
of hope and optimism. In the first legislative week, we have taken 
great strides towards improving the lives of hardworking Americans by 
increasing the minimum wage and fully implementing the recommendations 
of the 9/11 Commission.
  H.R. 3, the stem cell research enhancement act, is yet another 
example of this agenda of hope. This legislation will remove the 
restrictions that current administration has placed on the advancement 
of medicine and the hopes of millions.
  Tomorrow, we will hear from both sides of the stem cell debate about 
whether the Federal Government should support this type of research. We 
will hear promises and stories of tremendous scientific advancement.
  We will hear the limitations on these advancements, and we will also 
hear some distortions. But I come before you tonight with confidence; 
confidence in the science of stem cell research; confidence that the 
American people overwhelmingly support this legislation; confidence 
that tomorrow a great majority of my colleagues will once again vote in 
favor of the stem cell research enhancement act; and confidence that, 
one day, once all of our Nation's leaders will rally all around all 
types of stem cell research, and we will see big changes in the field 
of medicine and in the lives of so many people who are suffering today.
  So tonight, I rise, I rise to help spread this message of hope and 
optimism to our constituents who are watching at home; for the 400,000 
Americans who are living with MS; the 60,000 American family whose have 
faced the fear of a loved one's Parkinson's diagnosis this year; the 
thousands of Americans who have seen family members come to Alzheimer's 
disease; the 250,000 Americans who, like me, live with the constant 
challenges of a spinal cord injury, and so many others. To all of you, 
I say: Help and hope are on the way.
  I want to thank my colleagues for giving me time tonight and being 
part of this 100 hours agenda debate, particularly, again, what you 
have done for enlightening the American people on our position of the 
war on Iraq and the new direction that we need to take in this country.
  Thank you very much.

                              {time}  2015

  Mr. MEEK of Florida. We look forward to the debate tomorrow. I know 
Ms. Wasserman Schultz is going to give the e-mail address out, and then 
we are going to close out.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We want to thank the people in the chamber for 
listening, and encourage people to come to our Web site 
www.speaker.gov/30something, and we also look forward to having a 
graphic so we don't all have to make sure we remember the Web site. 
Thank you.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Life is getting better, Mr. Speaker, and we will 
get the tools necessary, visual aids as we usually have here on the 
floor. We keep the chart companies in business.
  Mr. Speaker, it was good to come to the floor again, 30-Something 
Working Group. We will be returning back next week with some of our new 
members that have joined us. Once again, we want to thank the 
Democratic leadership for allowing us to have this hour.
  Mr. Speaker, historic days in the Capitol. Tomorrow will be the same. 
Friday will be the same. We thank God for the opportunity to be in the 
majority.

                          ____________________