[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15731-15737]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 18, 2007, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it's an honor to come before the 
House, and we know that we have been working very hard over the last 
couple of days in trying to move these appropriation bills. I hope that 
we are successful and on schedule in moving these bills, because the 
American people deserve it.
  Also, as you know, when the 30-Something Working Group comes to the 
floor, we share the latest numbers out of Iraq. Unfortunately, they 
have gotten greater than they were before as it relates to casualties. 
Total deaths in Iraq at this time stands, as of 10:00 a.m. on the 7th 
of June, 3,490; and wounded in action and returned to duty, 14,208; and 
wounded in action and not returned to duty, 11,622.
  I think it's also important to know that when we moved the emergency 
supplemental act or bill, those two amendments did the following, one, 
provided those that are in harm's way with the necessary MWRAP vehicles 
that they needed for protection against IEDs, which is one of the main 
reasons why we lose men and women in Iraq.
  It also set forth the benchmarks that we know that there will be two 
reports by September that will come before this Congress and that the 
dollars that are only troop essential, only for troops and not for the 
actual mission, will be taken under serious consideration.
  I say, Mr. Speaker, that it's important that we have a bipartisan 
approach as it relates to looking at these two reports that will be 
given to us.
  The only way we're able to find our way out of Iraq any time in the 
very near future is through a bipartisan spirit. I think it's important 
that we talk about this from a leadership standpoint.
  To get out of Iraq and do the things that we need to do to meet the 
needs of this country, it's going to take courage; it's going to take 
leadership. I am not just talking about the elected leadership in this 
House on the Republican side or on the Democratic side, I am talking 
about leadership on behalf of the Members of this Congress in a 
bipartisan way from east to west, from south to north.

                              {time}  1845

  We have accomplished bipartisanship in the past on major issues that 
have come before this Congress. And many times I speak of the fact that 
it was the Democratic leadership that brought these issues to the 
floor, and we knew all along that a number of our Republican colleagues 
wanted to vote on these issues. But, now, in the 110th Congress we've 
provided an opportunity for them to do so. This is not a follow or lead 
kind of situation when it comes down to the safety of those that are in 
harm's way.
  And I just wanted to also mention, not only the benchmarks, not only 
the reports and the debate that's going to be coming up on this floor 
between now and September, but also what took place in that other 
amendment, the full funding for the gulf coast area as it relates to 
Louisiana, Mississippi, even Texas, Katrina, Wilma, and Rita, funding 
that has been clogged up in this process for a very long time.
  But I want to thank those that were very courageous in hanging in 
there and making sure in the bipartisan way that we passed that 
legislation to help those Americans that count on us to stand up on 
behalf of their needs as a country.
  Also, I think it's important that within that legislation, that 
emergency supplemental that passed through, off this floor, in a 
bipartisan way, waived the 10 percent Stafford Act, which I recently 
heard my good colleague and my friend, the majority whip speak in a 
very eloquent way about this recently, Mr. Clyburn.
  9/11, the 10 percent requirement local match for Federal dollars in 
the Stafford Act, that's when Federal dollars are given to locals after 
a disaster, that the 10 percent match was waived. New York did not have 
to carry out that match. Even my very own community in south Florida, 
when Hurricane Andrew hit, that 10 percent was waived. And a number of 
other natural disasters, in California, one earthquake was 10 percent, 
was waived.
  But until we had the strong leadership here in this Congress to even 
bring this issue to the forefront, because the administration did not 
want to deal with this issue, that it was brought to the floor to waive 
the funding for the people of New Orleans and the people of the gulf 
coast and all of the small parishes and cities in between. I think that 
came to some sort of number of 3.6-something billion, somewhere in that 
neighborhood, and that match alone saved the City of New Orleans, a 
little bit under a billion dollars with the 10 percent on that number.
  I think it's important to understand that when we work in a 
bipartisan way, we can get things accomplished.
  Now, could that have passed with just Democratic votes? Of course it 
could have. But there are less than 100 votes against us from sending 
those emergency dollars, not only to those victims of Hurricane Rita, 
Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Wilma, but also it allowed us to have the 
opportunity to be able to stand up on behalf of the children without 
health insurance.
  When I talk about bipartisanship and tie Iraq into that equation, I 
think it's important for me to pull the evidence out of how we've 
worked together under the democratic leadership in the House and 
bringing issues to the floor that we can be Americans on, not just 
Democrats and Republicans.
  Implementing the 9/11 Commission recommendation, H.R. 1, passed with 
299 votes, and with 68 Republicans voting in the affirmative with 
Democrats.
  Raising the minimum wage, H.R. 2, passed 315, with 82 Republican 
votes, and the rest, a supermajority of them were Democratic votes.
  Funding to enhance stem cell research, 253 in the affirmative, 37 of 
those votes were Republican votes.
  Making prescription drugs more affordable for seniors, 255; 24 
Republicans joined us in that effort.
  Cutting student loan, low-interest rates in half, H.R. 5, 356 votes; 
124 of those votes were Republican votes.
  Working in a bipartisan spirit, creating a long-term energy 
initiative as it relates to making sure that we're able to invest in 
the Midwest versus the Middle East, 264 votes, which is H.R. 6, with 36 
Republicans joining us in that effort.
  I think it's important to know that, and that was just in the Six for 
'06. But I think it's important for the Members to understand that it's 
important, and as we approach these reports and these benchmarks and 
the things that the Iraqi Government must do to be able to continue to 
receive, even beyond the 3-month funding that we've put in place until 
September; I want the Members to pay attention to these reports as they 
come before the Congress.
  I want them to pay attention to the debate that we will have next 
month on this issue, and vote as an American,

[[Page 15732]]

not as someone as a Democrat or Republican. I just want the Members to 
be able to understand that the Democratic leadership is providing this 
opportunity for us to come together as one on behalf of those that are 
in harm's way.
  I think it's also important for the report that comes in in 
September, and I will tell you as a person that's paying very close 
attention to this, let alone, Member of Congress, I don't know if the 
report is going to be much better than what the situation is right now, 
but if there's a process to get our men and women out of--our combat 
troops, I must add, out of Iraq, going door to door, kicking in doors, 
3:00 searches to bring about security in an area of Iraq or Baghdad 
itself, we have to allow the Iraqi Government to be able to do those 
things on behalf of their country to be able to carry out those 
security missions.
  And I will tell you, someone that has, you know, children and, 
hopefully they will have children, and as we move on to future 
generations, I think it's important for us to understand that there has 
to be some point in this war where we give a supermajority of the 
responsibility of security to the Iraqi people.
  I think it's very, very important that if we don't live by the rules 
that have been put forth in these benchmarks and the benchmarks that 
was in the emergency supplemental, and if we don't treat these two 
reports to Congress as Members of Congress versus a member of a given 
party, then this whole process that we set up to be able to give the 
administration an opportunity to share not only to the world, but to 
this Congress, that our mission there is still needed for security of 
the Iraqi people.
  I think it's very, very important for us, because, you know, it's 
good to say, well, you know it's good to make sure that families are 
secure. But it's counterproductive in many ways. And Madam Speaker, I 
think it's important that we really reflect on what are the positives 
and the negatives.
  Well, let me just talk a few minutes about the possible positives, 
making sure that we can help for a longer period of time the Iraqi 
Government to be able to secure itself and stand up on its own two 
feet, have the kind of democracy that's good for Iraq, probably not as 
good for the United States, but good for that area of the world. And 
there are some other countries and people are saying, Good job, United 
States. Those are the possible positives.
  Let's talk about the negatives just for a minute; not to say that 
there aren't other positives that are out there, but I don't want to 
take too much time on this particular point.
  The negatives: The negatives come in a package that many of us cannot 
comprehend. And I know a number of Members have not taken the privilege 
that many Members that are from the national security arena or serve on 
the committees, but I welcome the Members to go to the Pentagon, or I 
welcome the Members to get the kind of briefing that many of us have 
received here in Congress about what our men and women are doing in 
Iraq.
  Well, it goes something like this, or you can just watch any of the 
cable news shows and it'll show you exactly what they're doing. Many 
times, as it relates to these security missions, because there's a 
civil war that's going on right now in Iraq that our troops are in the 
middle of, they have to carry out security missions. And in those 
security missions, many times, locks and deadbolt locks on doors are 
kicked in, and it's not at a reasonable hour when folks know when 
you're coming, house search, looking for insurgents. 3:00, 4:00 in the 
morning, families are brought into the middle of the floor, flashlights 
are shining in their face.
  And I will tell you this: Someone that's living here in the United 
States, if something like that was to happen at my home, I'm pretty 
sure that all involved would never forget the event.
  It's motivating our actions there of fighting on behalf of the Iraqi 
Government and the people and trying to keep the peace, even though 
we're all well-intentioned, and our purpose is not to harm individuals, 
but as you look at it, it's one of the things that kind of come along 
with security in that part of the world. And it's necessary as long as 
we're there. And that's the reason why we have to get our combat troops 
out.
  Just like many Americans were super-motivated after 9/11 to go to 
either one of our Armed Forces offices to sign up to join the military 
and go to Afghanistan, these young men, mainly, and women, are signing 
up to join the jihad against the United States of America in a radical 
way. And it doesn't make sense to a lot of us, but all they remember is 
that someone who had a U.S. flag on their shoulder kicked in their 
door, and instead of bringing the peace, and instead of us getting the 
kind of rose petals and seen as liberators; and as it was explained to 
us by the administration and by many of the folks that came before the 
Armed Services Committee, I think it's important for us to understand 
that the negative is the counterproductive action that is taking place 
now that's putting us in a situation that we've never been in before, 
where we have other countries questioning our motivation for being in 
Iraq.
  So I want to make sure I'm saying it in a very plain way, because I'm 
not trying to get into acronyms and trying to head into an area that 
many Members, because you don't serve on the area or the subject, or 
you haven't served professionally in the Armed Forces, or you haven't 
been in a command position, I'm not talking--and I haven't either, but 
I want to make sure that we all understand, because I think the coming 
days and the coming weeks are going to be very, very important to not 
only the future of Iraq, but also the future of our country. I want to 
make sure that we have an opportunity to talk about some other issues 
here today.
  But I wanted to recognize my colleague from Pennsylvania, who is here 
to not only talk about this issue, but other issues that may be facing 
the Congress.
  I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sestak).
  Mr. SESTAK. Thank you for yielding. I wanted to also speak about Iraq 
and our U.S. security.
  I've always felt that Iraq is a tragic misadventure. I can remember 
being on the ground for just a short period of time, 2 months after the 
war in Afghanistan began, and I saw what needed to be done. I brought 
an aircraft carrier battle group back, 30 ships, 15,000 sailors, 
Special Forces, SEALs, Marines. And then I went back on the ground 18 
months later in Afghanistan and I saw what had not been accomplished 
because we diverted our attention, our resources, Special Forces, 
psychological forces, civil affairs forces to Iraq.
  I have always believed that not only is Iraq a tragic misadventure, 
but there is a strategy by which we can redeploy out of Iraq and not 
leave a failed state.

                              {time}  1900

  I have never believed in doubling down on a bad bet, and that is what 
we have done by this most recent surge of forces into Iraq. The last 2 
months have proven that. We have had more U.S. casualties among our 
forces than any 2-month period back to 2004.
  There is only one solution to Iraq, and that is not by continuing to 
flow forces there. It is by setting a date that is certain, a specific 
date by which everyone knows we will redeploy out of Iraq. I believe 
that this date certain, much like a tax policy here in the United 
States, is something that can begin to change the structure of 
incentives within Iraq and about the surrounding countries so that 
their behavior in Iraq, as well as in the critical Nation's of Iran and 
Syria, changes. If we are to set a date certain, the Iraqis will begin 
to understand that no longer will we continue to provide a political 
and a military cover for their 32 ministries in their government, that 
each is headed by an individual that is bent not upon Iraqi ambitions 
but personal ambitions to ensure that they consolidate as we provide 
them cover for their personal fiefdoms. We should let them know that we 
will no longer let them pursue these ambitions; that they must step up 
and assume personal, professional responsibility for the challenging 
political questions that must be addressed.

[[Page 15733]]

  When Senator Hagel and I went together to Iraq, we had the most 
senior Shia and Kurd leaders tell us that the reBaathification law, 
which would welcome back in the Sunnis, was something that was not only 
not important, but in their minds, it was appeasement. When will they 
begin to make the political decisions, to make the political 
accommodations to begin to reconcile their country so there can be 
stability? A date certain, at a certain length of time, my bill has 
said, for the last 4 months, at the end of December, is the one 
remaining leverage that we have in that region to also turn to Iran, 
who is involved destructively with Syria in this war, making us lead 
profusely while we are there, to change their incentives so that they 
understand that if we no longer keep this top on a simmering pot, that 
they will have to deal with the stability that will ensue.
  There are 4 million Iraqis that have been dislocated from their 
homes, 2 million of which have overflowed the borders. The Iranians and 
the Syrians do not want to have the remaining refugees come over their 
borders so that they have to deal with that instability. And, second, 
they do not want a proxy war between these two allied nations, Shia, 
Iran, on the one hand; and Sunnis, Syria, on the other, as they then 
would be left fueling different religious factions, a proxy war between 
themselves if we are not there. If the United States has the confidence 
to lead not just with its military but with diplomacy in that region, 
bringing Syria, Iran together to understand that the term 
``insh'Allah'' that is so well known in the Middle East, God willing, 
tomorrow, will no longer be accepted by us. Give them a date certain by 
which we should redeploy, because we also need to remember the length 
of that time cannot for us be tomorrow.
  It took us 6 months to redeploy out of Somalia with a much, much 
smaller force. In Iraq, we have 160,000 troops and over 100,000 U.S. 
civilians. It will take us some months. But under a date certain, we 
can leave behind a strategy that can leave an unfailed state as we 
redeploy within that region to our bases in Oman, Qatar, and Bahrain, 
carry a battle group into Afghanistan and many to come home because we 
have an army that does not have one unit that is ready to deploy 
anywhere in this world from home because they are in such a low state 
of readiness.
  As I conclude, I ask this Congress, the Democratic party, to ensure 
they pursue the strategy that will leave not an unfailed state but a 
state that is stabilized to some degree as we work with the regional 
nations to also understand to never again put our troops between us and 
the President.
  Being in the military has the dignity of danger. It is a dangerous 
business, but it doesn't have to be unsafe. We must do this on an 
authorization bill, not an appropriations bill. The moneys should flow 
for the safety of our troops as we do an authorization bill, set a date 
certain, 6, 9 months from today, and safely redeploy our troops as the 
one remaining leverage for those nations in that region to come 
together under U.S. confidence so that we can leave that nation, build 
up our strategic security again and focus on the rest of the world and 
here at home. And I am very grateful for the time.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from the great 
State of Pennsylvania. I think it is also important.
  It is also important to recognize those that have been in the field. 
Like I said, I personally haven't, but I am a Member of Congress, and I 
do pay very close attention to what those that are in the field have to 
say about what is happening in the field and also with the 
administration. And it has been a great discussion.
  One would say, we have a Democratic House, and we have a Democratic 
Senate. Why can't we bring about an end to this war? Well, I will tell 
you one thing: It can't be without effort.
  We have talked so much, Madam Speaker, on this floor about Iraq that 
it is almost like Iraq, Iraq and that other issue, Iraq. And I think 
the reason why we have talked about it is the fact that we know that we 
have to bring an end to what we have presently in Iraq right now. And 
just like my good colleague from Pennsylvania said, it is going to take 
time. I mean, it is almost like when you are moving out of a 
neighborhood or out of a house, you just can't do it in a day. It is 
going to take time for you to pack and do the things that you need to 
do, and that is even more difficult when you start looking at moving 
brigades and battalions and also assets.
  I want to just go through, Madam Speaker, the time line because I 
want to make sure that Members know that many of us here on this floor 
have done our due diligence in trying to get ourselves out of this 
situation. And we know, as it relates to the timeline, and I already 
talked a little bit about the benchmarks, but in February, there was a 
vote on this floor, which was a nonbinding resolution, but it sent a 
very strong message to the President of the United States that we did 
not stand with him as it relates to the surge technique that he came up 
with or the escalation of troops, as I call it, in Iraq. The Congress 
voted in the affirmative philosophy saying that it would actually work. 
That is one. It happened in February.
  Also, there was also a resolution that imposed restrictions on the 
White House to responsibly begin a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. 
That was another vote that took place here on this floor, which then 
the President vetoed. It passed the House, passed the Senate, and he 
vetoed it. Then there was a big meeting at the White House of 
Republicans and the President, enough Republicans to assure that the 
Congress could not override the President's veto. I think 1 day or 2 
days after that, I think, we remember everyone kind of came out in 
front of the White House, and they said, ``We support the President.'' 
And I am talking about the Republican conference in the House, mainly 
House Members, and they said, ``We will not participate in the 
overriding of the President.'' We know that took place.
  But still this Democratic House, along with the Speaker and I would 
even add maybe a couple of Republicans, and I am not sure, so don't 
quote me on that, voted to override the President's veto. And we 
failed. We did not have enough votes to do it. Why? It wasn't because 
Democrats went south on us or they didn't vote to override the 
President's veto. It happened because we didn't have the votes. We 
didn't have the bipartisan spirit that we needed to make it happen, and 
it did not happen.
  Also, when we look at the force protection and when we look at the 
things that our men and women have, I would say it was a courageous 
vote if you voted for the supplemental or you voted against it. It was 
courageous. And, also, I think it is important for us to understand 
that many of the issues that we are facing right now and our troops 
having what they need through the Defense Authorization bill; we 
imposed the readiness standards on the Armed Forces and making sure 
that there are standards. We knew. We took this from the DOD rules, but 
no one wanted to enforce it over there. We voted for being responsible 
and complete as it relates to the redeployment of our troops and to be 
able to withdraw our troops again, a vote that received 171 votes. Many 
of the members of the Out of Iraq Caucus and others spearheaded that 
vote. And I voted for it. I think it is important for us to understand 
that that time has now come. So we have to get that process started.
  One may say, well, why don't we stop? Well, the reason why we had to 
make sure that the men and women have what they needed, and no one 
wants anyone in the field not having what they need, is that we do have 
a political battle going on here and we do have a political impasse 
that is going on right here between the administration, members of the 
Republican Party that are in the U.S. House of Representatives and 
Senate, and it is important that we get past that impasse.
  And that is the reason why, Madam Speaker, when I started out here 
today in this Special Order, I said it is going to take the bipartisan 
spirit that we had in the Six in '06 initiatives. It is going to take 
the bipartisan spirit that we had on the two emergency supplemental 
amendments. It is going to

[[Page 15734]]

take that bipartisan spirit for us to get there.
  Now we have these benchmarks. Now we have reports that are going to 
have to come before Congress. And I am asking the Members to not look 
at it as a Republican or a Democrat or I am a real Republican or I am a 
conservative, a liberal Republican or a moderate or a conservative 
Democrat or a moderate Democrat. It doesn't matter. You have got to 
look at it through the eyes of being an American. And I think it is 
very important that we realize that, come the dates of the benchmark, 
when the reports have to come before the Congress, which is July 15 and 
September 15, that action has to be taken, and there will be other 
votes that will be coming up. There will be votes that will be 
introduced in September to deauthorize the war. That is not a secret. I 
will say it right here. It is going to happen. So do your reading. Do 
your research. Do your soul searching. Talk to your constituents 
because the bottom line is it is what it is. It is what it is. We are 
in the middle of a civil war in Iraq. And I don't need to even go back 
to the whole thing about Iraq originally having nothing to do with 9/
11. We all know that. I don't even need to go back to the fact that we 
were told and the country was told about weapons of mass destruction, 
and there were no weapons of mass destruction. We all know that. I 
don't even need to go back to the administration, the Republican 
leadership at that time, saying we will use the revenues from oil in 
Iraq to be able to fund the war, and we will be greeted as liberators, 
and it will be the best thing since apple pie and Chevy trucks. We 
already know that, and I don't need to go back there and elaborate 
further on those issues.
  A lot of folks like to talk about the past. Someone took a vote a 
couple months ago and has got a problem with that vote. Well, that's 
fine. You can have a problem with that vote. Let's talk about the votes 
that are coming up. Let's talk about the benchmarks where one has to 
report before Congress. Let's also talk about July 15. Let's talk about 
September 15. Let's talk about what is going to happen when the 3 
months of authorization or funding that was given in the emergency 
supplemental, let's talk about that. Let's talk about looking at a 
step-by-step process to deauthorize the war in Iraq. Let's talk about 
those issues. Let's act on those issues.
  And to those that believe that this war should have ended yesterday 
and that it has not ended yesterday because there is not enough 
leadership on the Democratic side to make it happen, well, look at this 
and listen to this: There wouldn't even be a vote on the floor if it 
wasn't for the Democratic leadership bringing these issues up. It 
wouldn't even be in the newspaper. It wouldn't have been considered. 
There wouldn't have been a number of hearings that have been held in 
the Rayburn building, the Armed Services Committee and in the Foreign 
Affairs Committee and the Appropriations Committee.

                              {time}  1915

  We have already surpassed the hearings on Iraq and all of those 
committees in this Congression alone, and we're not even past 7 months 
yet. So, for those that are saying well, what is the House doing and 
what is the Senate doing? Understand this; in the Senate, it's hard to 
even get the votes to even get half of the stuff that we've done here 
in the House, not because the will is not there, it's because we don't 
have that bipartisan spirit that I spoke of.
  I think it is important here in this House that we realize, I mean, 
last night was a perfect example, that we have to work in a bipartisan 
way if we're going to stand up on behalf of the American people. We may 
have impasse, but we've got to get beyond that. We've got to make sure 
that we run this House in a way that the American people can be proud 
of it.
  But, you know, it's one thing about procedural motions, Mr. Ryan, my 
good friend from Ohio, and it's another thing about action. And because 
so many American lives are in jeopardy in Iraq right now in the middle 
of a civil war, we don't have enough time to play politics here in 
Washington. The only thing that we have to do is to allow our troops to 
have the kind of representation, and their families, here in this House 
and over in the Senate and in the White House that will eventually 
reunite those families with their fathers, their mothers, their sisters 
and their brothers. There is a process. The name of this action of 
getting out of Iraq is not checkers, it's chess. We have to think about 
it and it has to be thought out.
  We're not trying to microwave major decisions. But I can tell you, we 
don't have enough time for those who want to play ``operation run the 
clock out'' and see how long can we go until we get that end date. My 
good friend from Pennsylvania was just here saying that there has to be 
an end date. On the lease of a car, there is a date that you've got to 
return the car back in. On a loan, there is a date that the loan has to 
be paid off. There is a date that it has to be paid.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I will yield.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. The opposite of that, if there is not a date 
certain, that means that there is no end. And quite frankly, if there 
is no end in sight, how do we expect the Iraqi troops to get trained 
and to actually stand up if they think we are going to continue to be 
there? You know, it's like raising kids, at some point they've got to 
leave the house. They've got to stand up on their own. They've got to 
go pay their own rent, their own cars, their own insurance and 
everything else. I think that is what we are trying to communicate. 
We're not saying we want an end date just to have an end date. There is 
a reason. I think it is important for the Iraqis to know that the 
American people are not going to support this forever, and they need to 
stand up, regardless of what side you are on on the vote a few weeks 
ago or at the beginning of the war.
  I want to talk about what happened last night and today on the House 
floor and what bill we were trying to pass. As most people know who are 
paying attention to this now, we have a procedure here where we bring a 
bill to the House floor after it goes through the committee process. 
And yesterday it came to the House floor and it was what we will call 
an open rule, so anyone can offer an amendment. There were over 140 
amendments to the Homeland Security bill. And our friends in the 
minority who used to run the Chamber, Republicans, Madam Speaker, were 
frustrated about earmarks in the congressional process, and so they 
were protesting this bill. They kept invoking a motion called a motion 
to rise, which basically ends debate on the bill and on the amendments 
and stops the process. They did this, I think, nine times last night, 
and debate went until 2 in the morning.
  I share this with other Members and those paying attention, Madam 
Speaker, because they, in essence, filibustered the Homeland Security 
bill. And it is important for us to recognize what this bill does. This 
funds the Homeland Security Department. I want to go through this 
because our friends filibustered more border patrol agents, 3,000 that 
the Democrats were trying to fund and get to the border so that we can 
secure our border.
  Now, we hear from our friends on the other side about border 
security, about illegal immigrants, about all of this stuff that they 
keep talking about about illegal immigrants and terrorists. Last night 
and today, Mr. Meek, we tried to put 3,000 Border Patrol agents on the 
border, and they filibustered the bill. So we have not had a vote on 
this bill. It has not passed the House.
  We had money in here for first responders, for our firemen, those 
people who would arrive on a scene first in the most critical time in 
the most critical positions. They filibustered that. So this bill did 
not pass the House.
  We have equipment and technology that will allow us to keep our ports 
safe and to monitor what is coming into our ports and detect possible 
attacks on the United States; the Republicans filibustered that. And 
this bill did not leave the House floor today as it was scheduled. 
State grants for law

[[Page 15735]]

enforcement, $90 million, urban area grants. The list goes on and on. 
Transit grants; emergency management perform grants; fire grants; 
metropolitan medical response grants; interoperable communication 
grants; port security grants; REAL ID grants; explosive detection 
systems; air cargo explosive screenings. It did not pass the House 
because the Republicans filibustered the bill today. You know why? 
Because of earmarks. And you know what? There wasn't one earmark in 
this bill, not one; not a Democratic earmark, not a Republican earmark. 
It was pure politics today on the House floor, Mr. Meek. You know it, I 
know it, they know it. And who suffered through all of this? The 
American people.
  Let me make one final point before I volley it back over to you. The 
National Intelligence Estimate stated last year that the war in Iraq 
has created more terrorists around the world who hate America. Okay. So 
whether you were for or against the war in Iraq at this point is 
irrelevant, really. What are we going to do now? Well, the National 
Intelligence Estimate has said that there are more terrorists who hate 
America now. So now there are more terrorists out there than there were 
before, around 9/11, that are going to come to America and try to harm 
us.
  So, in order to combat that, the majority of the Democrats are 
saying, why are we fighting this war in a country that had nothing to 
do with 9/11, was not harboring terrorists, was not the Taliban, right? 
And we have this war going on. Democratic philosophy is, fund the 
Homeland Security bill. Protect our ports; protect our borders; fund 
our first responders. Let's put some money so we can have more Arabic-
speaking translators so that the stuff we are pulling down off the 
satellites we can translate. Right now we don't even have enough 
translators to translate the tapes that we are taping from the 
satellites from terrorists around the world.
  Let's be smart. This isn't 1940. You don't drop big bombs anymore. 
Everything is decentralized; it's more delicate, it's more complicated. 
It takes a more complex constructive debate, not filibustering the 
demagogue earmarks in a bill where there are no earmarks.
  I thought what happened in the last 24 hours has been a real 
disservice to the American people, and I think it continues to point 
out why they had a change of heart in the last election.
  A couple of the comments that I would like to respond to, Mr. Meek, 
that were made today and last night. First of all, we hear a lot from 
our Republican friends, Madam Speaker, that the Democrats are fiscally 
irresponsible, okay? Which holds absolutely no water.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, I always get into this thing that I 
don't even like to say what they say because it's just so, you know, 
it's almost like because they say it, I guess that it's supposed to be 
true. It is so far from the truth. It's almost like if you get a letter 
and you say, wow, in this letter it says that the rain goes up from the 
ground and into the sky, let me go outside and check. I mean, it's so 
funny. I mean, you know the rain comes down, so why do you have to 
check their point that it goes up?
  You know, I came today, Mr. Ryan, to talk about and hopefully provide 
some verbal leadership in a bipartisan spirit, because if it was just 
politics I would say, well, Republicans keep doing what you're doing 
and we're going to keep doing what we're doing and we will see next 
November how the people feel about it. You continue to dig the hole. 
But you know something, Mr. Ryan? The difference between politics and 
what happened on this floor last night and today is the fact that 
American lives are at stake.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. That's right.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. It's not politics. This is blood. It's family. 
You know? And it's very, very important that we all understand our 
responsibility.
  I also think, Mr. Ryan, as you go on to speak in a very forceful way, 
and I am glad that you are doing that, as a member of the 
Appropriations Committee, that if we are going to get through this 
process we have to think about the institution of the House of 
Representatives.
  Now, I am not a Member of Congress with a conspiracy theory, but the 
last time we were in control, all of the appropriations bills passed 
the floor and went through the process, conference and everything, on 
time. It wasn't continuing resolutions upon continuing resolutions upon 
3 more months of a continuing resolution and say, oh, my goodness, 
we're into the following year. It wasn't that kind of effort. It was 
running the government like it is supposed to be operated.
  We came in here this week to complete how many appropriations? Four, 
five appropriation bills? Four appropriation bills. And now we find 
ourselves behind schedule. We find ourselves in a posture that we did 
not plan to be in, and that's running behind, not because the will 
wasn't there on behalf of the committee, not because the staff didn't 
do what they were supposed to do to prepare the necessary bills to move 
to the floor and through committee and through subcommittee, it's 
because of the procedural moves that some Members of the House, 
Republicans, use.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Will the gentleman yield?
  The arguments we were hearing today from our friends, two things that 
really struck me as funny, actually, it was so outrageous, one is, we 
are not fiscally responsible, Madam Speaker. That was the first 
argument is that we're not fiscally responsible. This is coming from a 
party who, in the last 6 years, Republican House, Republican Senate, 
Republican White House, borrowed more money from foreign interests than 
every President and Congress before them combined. Now we are going to 
get lectures on fiscal responsibility. Borrowing money from China, 
Japan, OPEC countries, South Korea, the list goes on and on. And we've 
only been in charge 5 months. We haven't even passed a bill yet and now 
they're saying we are fiscally irresponsible. It doesn't hold any 
water.
  And then the other comment was that we are not spending the money 
properly. This is coming from the party that has been running the war 
in Iraq, where they are giving more money to Halliburton. Halliburton 
has already been fined for marking up food, trying to basically war 
profiteer off of what's going on in Iraq. The Pentagon lost a trillion 
dollars and nobody even knows where it is. And we're going to get 
lectures on how we are spending our money. Same group of people who 
oversaw Katrina, the disaster where people were dying because of the 
poor investment, poor management, poor execution, poor planning of this 
administration with a Congress that provided zero oversight, we are 
going to get lectures on how to spend money and how to run government. 
Doesn't hold any water.
  Now, here's why I think, and I'm going to get out here on a limb here 
a little bit, Mr. Meek. Here is why I think our Republican friends are 
trying to filibuster and distract and throw up red flags and put some 
smoke into the air to try to distract, and mirrors, just to try to get 
everybody thinking differently.

                              {time}  1930

  Here is why I think. I want to just briefly review what we have done 
with our budgets out of committee. Some haven't passed yet, but some 
are on their way, and we are going to get these through, because the 
American people deserve it.
  Our veterans budget, Mr. Meek, was the largest, and we all know the 
veterans' problems across the country, we don't have to outline them, 
the largest increase in veterans spending in the history of the VA. Our 
veterans who come back home will be taken care of.
  Saying that we support our troops is not a punchline for us. It is 
something that we take to heart. Budgets are about priorities and 
values, and in our budgets we have the largest increase for veterans. 
We have programs that are funded in there for brain injuries, for 
posttraumatic stress, to make sure the drug supply stays safe for our 
veterans, and on and on and on. We fixed

[[Page 15736]]

the Walter Reed problem, rehabilitation, prosthetics. Everything that 
is needed for our veterans, they got.
  In the last 21 years, there has been a small coalition of veterans 
groups who have their own little budget that they submit to Congress. 
Never before has Congress met what they wanted in their budget, until 
this year. We not only met it, we surpassed it by $230 million. We went 
above and beyond even what the veterans groups were asking for, because 
that is the commitment that we have.
  With that coming down the pike, if I was in the minority and been in 
charge for 16 years or 14 years and had a President, a Republican 
President, and didn't deliver on any of that, I wouldn't want to talk 
about the Democrat's success either. I would want to start all kinds of 
other fights and filibusters and do everything else.
  That is just the beginning. In the education bill, we increased the 
Pell Grant by $600 or $700. In Ohio, for example, where Governor 
Strickland now passed a budget where there is a zero percent increase 
in Ohio college tuition next year and a zero percent the next year, it 
used to be 9 percent and 9 percent, you take that, if you are a student 
going to school in Ohio, you go from 9 percent increases to zero 
percent increases and a $700 bump on your Pell Grant, that is a tax cut 
for average families.
  We have increased Community Health Centers, so poor and middle-class 
people can go to a Community Health Clinic, by $400 million. Thousands 
of people in America who didn't have access to healthcare will now have 
access to it, at least through a clinic.
  EvenStart, Head Start, after school programs, all funded with 
increases from the Democratic Congress. We passed the minimum wage, Mr. 
Meek. We passed a $200 million-plus investment in alternative energy 
resources and research.
  Now, I am done, but I just want to make the point that with all of 
this positive news going on, Mr. Meek, I wouldn't want to talk about 
our budgets either. I would filibuster anything to prevent the 
Democratic Congress from passing these bills, taking them to the 
American people and campaigning on them next year.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I think what is important, Mr. Ryan, is that we 
look at this thing for what it is, we look at it for what it is, and we 
let it be known, because you know, it takes us a little while, Mr. 
Ryan, to kind of get ourselves in the grove of really talking about the 
situation at hand.
  The situation is, unfortunately, politics is overruling the 
governance of this country. It is almost like having someone at the 
dining room table, Mr. Ryan, that will continue to be disruptive when 
you are trying to have a decent conversation at the table.
  Now, let me just tell you, last night about 11 p.m., it was very 
interesting to hear some of the debate, about, you know, it wasn't 
about the fact that there was a lack of border agents in this bill or 
ICE agents or there was a lack of homeland security equipment to follow 
up on all the 9/11 recommendations. That wasn't the argument. It wasn't 
an argument that we were being weak on something. The argument was all 
about, well, you know, somebody told me that this is the procedure and 
I disagree with the procedure. This is the homeland security bill, and 
as we started to go through the process of showing that Democrats can 
govern, it was, well, how can we disrupt that process?
  Now, there are two things, Mr. Ryan, when you were talking that came 
to mind. The President has said, as a matter of fact, he hasn't said 
it, he sent a letter to the Speaker saying that if you send me a bill 
that is over the budget that I sent you, then I am going to veto it. 
That means if we have any great ideas as it relates to doing something 
about healthcare in this country, the President is saying I don't want 
to hear it, because it is not in my budget. So shall it be written, so 
shall it be done.
  I know the President is a little spoiled. I know he is accustomed to 
having certain things from the rubber-stamp Congress and all, and this 
is a new kind of thing for him and the administration. But I think it 
is important that we pay very, very, very close attention to what is 
happening as we start to think about democracy.
  Now, to say you are going to veto something, that means two things. 
This is speculation, maybe. Our colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle are saying, let's slow this thing down a little bit, because we 
get all of these bills passed, which they will pass, and then it goes 
to the President and he starts to veto these bills. Then they call us 
on the next day, the President, ``come down to the White House,'' like 
they did when we passed the emergency supplemental, putting not only 
dates of redeployment, but also benchmarks, and if they weren't met, 
then redeployment would start automatically, and then had an end date 
as relates to making sure we get a majority of our combat troops out of 
Iraq. He called the Republicans down to the White House and they said, 
we are not going to override you. Okay.
  Will they do that, or can they do that, Madam Speaker, when it comes 
down to education? Will they do that or can they do that when it comes 
down to homeland security? Will they do that, and when I say ``they,'' 
the Republicans, stand with the President when it comes down to the 
largest increase in the VA history? Can they stand with the President 
to withstand an override or to help him withstand an override? That is 
the problem.
  So as we start to look at this issue and as we start to march down 
the road of responsibility and moving this country in a new direction, 
that is what the people voted for, and, guess what? Some Republicans 
were elected on new direction too. Folks wanted a change. They wanted 
to come to Washington and do what they needed to do. Independent 
thinkers.
  It didn't look like that last night. It looked like, you know, well, 
the leadership has told us this is what we have to do, and if we have 
to be here and the sun is going to rise, that is fine. We will be here.
  I voted against rising last night. It is already on the record. It 
was on the board. I voted against it, because I didn't believe that it 
was right to allow anyone to do what they were doing to the level that 
they were doing it. That is fine.
  The Democratic side, we have done motions to adjourn, done motions to 
rise. But, guess what? One or two or three times, maybe. But when you 
start making history, and I haven't checked, maybe I need to check with 
the Clerk's Office or the Historian of the House, of double digit 
motions to rise in the middle of the night, that is something that we 
must question.
  So, Mr. Ryan, as we start to focus on this issue of the true 
motivations of what is happening with these appropriations bills, I 
think the Six in 06 was a little bit too much for the Republican 
minority to swallow and go home and explain. And I think because there 
has been a date certain, again, Madam Speaker, it is interesting, we 
have a date certain to pass these bills off the floor, I think that 
they don't want to go home the 4th of July weekend and start to explain 
why they didn't vote for the largest increase in VA history, why they 
didn't vote for education and healthcare for our children, why they did 
not vote to protect our environment, why did they did not vote as it 
relates to the issues of transportation and infrastructure, and why, 
you know, Mr. Ryan, in closing, I take that from you, sir, why did we 
continue to stand with the President to withstand an override, because 
the President has said I am going to veto any bill that comes to me $1 
over the budget.
  Now, here is the President that has sent us into a free-fall as it 
relates to deficits as far as the eye can see and record-breaking 
borrowing from foreign nations, higher than it has ever been in the 
history of the Republic. This is coming from this President. It is 
coming from the administration and the minority that was in the 
majority in the last Congress and the Congress before that of borrowing 
money in a rubber stamp fashion.
  I just want to say that, because we have to figure out who is the pot 
calling the kettle black.
  Mr. Ryan, we are brushing up on the last minute. I am going to yield 
back,

[[Page 15737]]

and then you claim the time and we can go from there. You will have 
time.
  Madam Speaker, I want to thank the leadership and also the Members 
for allowing me to serve, and I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________