Tim Ryan

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I move to strike the last word, Mr. Chairman. First, I would like to lend my support to my chairman of this subcommittee, and also Mr. Hobson, for their great work on this bill. I think it's a great bill. I think you have really shown the rest of us in Congress how a committee can and should work together for the good of the country. I would like to address a few issues that have been brought up, not necessarily related to the bill at hand, with regard to spending. And I am glad to see a couple of my friends on the Republican side have found some religion over the past few months. These were the same Members who were here over the past 6 years, Republican control of the House, Republican control of the Senate, Republican White House, and ran up $4 trillion in debt for the United States of America. We didn't hear boo from them while all this was going on. And the biggest problem has been most of that money was borrowed from foreign countries, Japan, China, OPEC countries; $4 trillion mostly borrowed from foreign countries by the Republican Party. They've also mentioned that there has been stress on families. Well, I'm glad they finally came around to understand that, too. And some of the things that we have already done, Mr. Chairman, have addressed those issues: $700 increase in the Pell Grant, that will relieve some pressure for families; student loans rates being cut in half, that will reduce pressure on families; increase in the minimum wage, which begins this summer; increased SCHIP coverage; increased coverage for women's health care needs. These are issues that are going to relieve the pressure that most American families are feeling, and it took a Democratic Congress to implement that. Now, to the heart and soul of this bill. I think this bill does two things, Mr. Chairman. One, this is a national security issue. What Mr. Hobson and Mr. Visclosky have done here is increase the security of this country by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, by increasing our funding for the ``loose nukes'' program so that we can be safer. And this dovetails perfectly into what we've already been doing here with the Homeland Security bill, where we're going to have 3,000 more Border Patrol agents, where we are going to have technology for our ports so we are making sure we cover the cargo in. This bill fits directly in with that. Money for our first responders, COPS program. This all fits together as a piece of a national security bill. And this bill also, I think equal to the national security provisions, this is a bill about economic development. The problems we have been having over the last 30 years is that wages have been stagnant. And Rose in Illinois and some of the other people that my friend from Texas have mentioned have had stagnant wages for 30 years. This bill makes the kind of investments that the study from the National Academy of Sciences recommended, ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' The head of that study was the former CEO of Lockheed Martin. And he noted, along with a very distinguished panel, that the connection between research and development and growth cannot be understated, especially research in the physical sciences. And when you look at what this bill does, 3,500 researchers are funded through this bill; $93 million for research with hybrid cars, $49 million for advanced combustion research, $48 million for materials research for fuel efficient cars, $23 million for fuels technology, $708 million for coal energy research. This is an economic development bill. When we began to fund NASA, that created thousands and thousands and thousands of jobs in science and engineering. This bill will do the same thing. It will give Rose in Illinois and all of those other folks who have had stagnant wages an opportunity to go into a field that is growing with public research and private research. This is a jobs bill, this is an economic development bill for a lot of the regions who have suffered under the global economy. I appreciate what the chairman has done, I appreciate what the ranking member from the great State of Ohio has done with this bill. This is a jobs bill and this is a national security bill. I urge its passage, and I urge that this amendment go down.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman. And I appreciate, I caught bits and pieces of the debate here, and I think you all have illustrated points that need to be made, and we need to keep making them here if we're going to have any headway. And I remember sitting in the meeting with the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Michaud) where the politicians were talking about this trade unionist who was trying to organize a plant, and the next day or two days later, he's beheaded. Now, we think labor politics are tough in the United States, which they are, but I don't think they come anywhere close to that level. And it is a pleasure for me to be here with my partner in Summit County, Ohio, Akron, Ms. Sutton. I just want to make a broad point and then talk a little bit about a bill that I have introduced with Duncan Hunter on currency. And the first point I want to make, and I think everything that you were talking about is saying, we need to represent our values here in the United States of America, not just here when we hear about family values, and we need to have values and we all agree with that. But put it in our actions. And I think that's what we want to do, and the trade agreements that we sign consistently, I think, go against it. And when you look at what the results are, and Sojourners had a great magazine; I may have sent it to some of you. Two percent of the world owns more wealth than the other 98 percent. Now, that's unbelievable. Two percent of the world own more wealth than the other 98 percent combined. That signals to us that the models that you were talking about, Mr. Speaker, are not sufficient for shared growth for all people. And we're not saying that if you go out and you start a company and you take a risk and you take out a loan, that you shouldn't be able to make money. God bless you. Make all you want. But recognize that you're a part of a bigger system here that we're all a part of that, investments in education, the minimum wage which we finally were able to get passed, college tuition; all of these things matter, health care in the grand scheme of things. And what we want to do is start exporting some of these values that we hold dear. And when you say, well, you can make something in China and there are no labor laws, no environmental laws, no this, well, what's the alternative? We go back to those days? And I've been to China. You may have, too. Dumping waste in the rivers, like we had a problem up in Cleveland a few decades ago where the Cuyahoga River caught on fire. Now we don't want to go back to those days, where thousands and thousands of kids got asthma because we didn't have clean air regulations. We don't want to go back to those days. So we are now in a unique period in history, because in the United States, we're the consumer. We're the ones buying right now. Now, that may not be the case 10 years from now, but we are now, and so let's leverage our power as consumers to make some of these changes. And I hope that what we're doing here tonight, and Mr. Michaud and Ms. Sanchez and Ms. Sutton, what we're doing here tonight is going to help push those things along. The China currency bill that we have introduced here basically tries to get China to comply with international law. And international law says you're not allowed to subsidize your goods. Well, China is subsidizing their currency, which is kind of a little more complicated than a government saying, okay, you make this widget, we're going to fund you; we're going to subsidize you so you can sell it cheaper in another country. What China's doing with their currency is basically subsidizing it so that every product that they send the United States is between 25 and 40 percent cheaper. I have a company in my district called Wheatland Tube. And it's also in Mr. Altmire's district in Western Pennsylvania. They make tubing. The final product that arrives on the shores of the United States from China is the same price as Wheatland Tube's raw materials before they even start the process. That's the kind of advantage China's getting with their currency. And I know you all are supportive of this bill, and I think it's something that we can, not talking just about trade, but this is something that I think free traders and fair traders and Democrats and Republicans and people from all over the country are agreeing on. And I know Mr. Levin and Mr. Rangel want to move on a bill that does something with China, and I hope that this is a component of that, and I'm confident it will be. But those are the kind of things that we need to stand up and talk about. And if we don't, no one will, because there is a certain amount of people that will benefit from the current system, and they are the ones who want to keep it just the way it is. But it is important for us to come here, 700,000 constituents, 700,000 constituents, 700,000 constituents, it adds up if we unify and organize and do what I think made all the great social movements in the country great, was organization, traditionally the Democratic Party, the unions, the churches. And I will make one final point that I know I have made to you guys already. It is so important for us to bring in the church communities. I am Catholic, and I think the Catholic Church has an obligation. They speak out on so many issues that I think have less relevance than this issue on average people's day-to-day lives. And I hope that they step up and talk about this issue with the same passion that we hear them speak out on a lot, and the evangelicals we just need to pull. Sojourners Magazine with Jim Wallace did a terrific job a couple of issues ago. But if this does not become a moral, value-centered movement, we are going to continue to struggle. We have the environmentalists and we have the trade unionists, and we have some of us in the Democratic Party. But if we don't pull in the church community, I think we are going to continue to fail. I appreciate the opportunity to be here with you.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I know that our friend from Minnesota is here, but I just want to tell one story because I heard it a few weeks ago from my cousin who worked for Delphi Packard. The plant used to be 15,000 and now they are down to maybe 1,000 because of the global economy, trade deals, China, the whole nine yards. He worked there for probably 10 years, and many people worked there for 30 and made a great living. He is now taking the machines off the ground, taking the bolts out of the ground, helping move these machines, and they are shipping them to China. Now, let's talk about some dignity. This guy is taking out the machines and shipping the machines and his job off to China. That is where we are at. And we have got some work to do. We are not saying build fences and don't compete. But investments in education, what we talked about early on with stem cells and alternative energy, let's create the new wave of jobs that need to be created for our people to work. It is not just trade and exporting. It is making investments in the U.S. and creating new jobs.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I will not yield. The problem with this is that God forbid something does happen in this country. Every minute that we waste here is 1 more minute that the terrorists get to attack this country without the proper port security, without the proper border security. So as you delay and you move to rise and you move to adjourn--

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, as the Republicans move to rise, as they move to adjourn, as they try to filibuster, that is just buying time for these programs not to get implemented. And God forbid the American people, after another attack, come to us and say, what were you doing? Why didn't you have the technology on the ports? The Republicans are going to have to go back home to their district and say, we were filibustering this bill.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Just to clarify. The ranking member submitted earmarks. There are no earmarks in the bill. That's a clear difference. I ask my friend from North Carolina, what do you want to cut out of this bill? The Border Patrol? The 3,000 Border Patrol agents? Do you want to get rid of the technology that we're going to have on the ports to scan cargo coming in? Is that what you want to cut? Do you want to cut the money that we're giving to our first responders? Mr. Chairman, exactly what is it that you don't like about this bill? There are no earmarks and we're funding programs that are going to protect the homeland. Now, we understand clearly, Mr. Chairman, that our friends on the other side have had a difficult time governing the country. That doesn't mean they have to impede us from doing it.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thank the gentleman for his courtesy. The reason the gentleman from Texas doesn't have an earmark in this bill is because there are no earmarks in this bill.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Will the gentleman from Texas yield?

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I will not yield. You guys have had the floor for 24 hours. You could let us say a few words. The bottom line is this: The new Democratic Congress has fulfilled the promises that we have made, Mr. Chairman. Passed the minimum wage, cut student loan interest rates in half, security issues. When you look at the budgets that we have passed, the largest increase in veterans spending in the history of the VA to take care of those soldiers who are out there, a $500 to $600 increase in the Pell Grant, fully funding Head Start, SCHIP, Even Start, after-school programs, investment in alternative energy sources. If I was you, I wouldn't want our bills to pass either, because when these pass and we take it to the American people, Mr. Chairman, our friends on the other side are going to wish they would have had the level of competence that the Democrats have.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I appreciate my good friend from North Carolina. We've been out here a bunch together. First, he says, well, this is politics. This is not politics. This is governing, something you on the other side know very, very little about.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, my friends on the other side were saying that this is about politics, and I would like to say that this is not about politics. This is about governing, Mr. Chairman, something the Republicans in Congress know very, very little about. Now, we have heard lectures today about spending too much money. $4 trillion under the Republican watch, Mr. Chairman, borrowed from China, Japan and OPEC countries with a Republican House, a Republican Senate, a Republican President. Mr. Chairman, I hope the Republicans will spare us the lectures on fiscal responsibility. And then, Mr. Chairman, they start saying that, well, you're spending it, but you're not spending it right. You can spare us the lectures on spending. Need we bring up Katrina, need we bring up Iraq, Mr. Chairman? We don't really need lectures from the most blatantly irresponsible spending Congress in the history of this illustrious body. Now, the Homeland Security Department was created by the Republican Party, Mr. Chairman. They ran on it. They ran campaigns against Max Cleland on it. They created it. And so now they're saying that if we actually fund it to protect the country, that somehow we're doing something wrong. That's what you do with programs that work; you fund them. And now more to the point of what I think the real substance of this argument is really all about: The National Intelligence Estimate said that the war in Iraq has created more terrorists around the globe. That means, Mr. Chairman, that there are more terrorists out there now than there were before, and they're all coming to get us here in the United States. President Bush even says all the time, You know, if we don't fight 'em over there, they're going to come over here and get us. So what we're trying to do in this bill is to protect the homeland. We're trying to protect against all those terrorists that have been created in the last 5 years, that have joined al Qaeda and all of these other groups that now want to come over here. We're trying to actually protect the homeland. So we want to secure the ports. We want to make sure we have the first responders. You're impeding progress with the shenanigans that have been going on here the last 24 hours.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. That's right.

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. 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 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. RYAN of Ohio. I would be happy to yield.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Will the gentleman 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 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. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, we are going to be brief. We just wanted to make a few more points here before we wrapped things up. One of the issues that is a major issue for the country, for the Congress, for the American people, for people living on border states, is Customs and border protection. We sat here many nights, Mr. Meek and I, and listened to our friends come on the other side and give 5-minute speeches, 1-hour speeches, on the issue of immigration, on the major threat to the United States of America of illegal immigrants coming over our border. In this homeland security bill that our Republican friends filibustered today and yesterday, there is $8.8 billion for Customs and border protection. $1 billion is provided for border security fencing and tactical infrastructure, along with 3,000 additional Border Patrol agents being funded. Now, we have a bill that they agree with. I mean, you want to talk about the Potomac Two-Step, Mr. Meek? We have got a bill here that, across-the-board, everybody agrees with. You ask them why they are not voting for it, and they say, because we are against earmarks. We say there are not any earmarks in here. Now why are you voting against it? Politics. We have got to get past this, especially on an issue so critical as this. Now, we added $27 million for 250 additional Customs and Border Patrol Agents for commercial operations and validations of commercial vehicles, verifying that trusted shippers have placed necessary security measures mandated in the SAFE Port Act. I mean, I don't understand. I mean, you know, this is my fifth year here, but I don't understand. We are trying to pass a homeland security bill, and one of our friends, our buddy from North Carolina on the other side, said today that we should have passed the defense bill first. That was his big argument he made today, when we just passed a defense supplemental bill for $120 billion, with close to $100 billion of defense spending in there. We just passed one, and the funding goes until September 30th. We are talking about protecting the homeland, Mr. Meek. We are not talking about all these other great things we are doing. This is essential. This is our constitutional duty, is to protect the country. Article I, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, Mr. Meek, creates this House right here, and that is our first obligation, to make sure that we support that. So I think it is important that those folks who are at home find out what is going on in this bill. Those folks in our own congressional districts across the country, who are members of law enforcement, who are police, fire, they need to know that we had millions and millions, and it probably adds up to billions of dollars, in here. One of the things you hear about is intra operable communication grants. If you hear from our local police and first responders, it is that they don't have the proper equipment in a crisis situation to communicate with each other. So we put in here $50 million to continue a program to help local police, firefighters and first responders to talk to each other during a crisis. Fire grants, $800 million; that is $500 million above the President's request to address communications and staffing problems facing local fire departments. Emergency management performance grants. And $300 million for all hazard grants, State and local emergency managers, national emergency management agency performance grant report. There is a $287 million shortfall in that program. We are trying to fix it. We are trying to fix it. And we had a filibuster last night until 2 in the morning last night.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Two points I want to make before we wrap things up here tonight. I appreciate what you've said. One of the provisions in this Homeland Security bill, and I keep going back through here to see what our Republican friends filibustered, and we have heard a lot over the last couple of years about airport security, obviously after 9/11. I want to share with the American people, Mr. Meek, and get into the Congressional Record exactly what is in this bill for transportation security. There is $6.62 billion, $307 million above last year, $219 million above the President's request. There are three major components of this bill: Explosive detection systems, there is $849 million for procurement, installation and maintenance of equipment to protect commercial aircraft. This allows the TSA to address the most pressing needs identified in their recent aviation baggage screening study. They studied it and said, here is what we need. We said, here is $849 million, get what you need to make the American people safe when they fly. Air cargo explosive screening, $78 million, which doubled the amount of cargo screened on passenger aircraft. Our friends on the other side of the aisle filibustered this bill. It did not pass because of what they were doing. Secure flight certification, TSA would certify that no security risks were raised by TSA secure flight plans that would limit screening of airline passenger names only against a subset of the full terrorist watch list, another mechanism to protect the American people. Three major components of protecting the people when they travel, make this process easier and safer at the same time; our Republican friends filibustered this issue last night and today. I want to end with one point. Conservatism is dead. I want to be completely clear about this. This isn't a George Bush, Madam Speaker, has screwed things up so bad we can fix it if we are just more conservative. Republican House, Republican Senate, Republican President, implemented the neoconservative foreign policy and implemented the conservative agenda without any inhibitions, without any barriers. It was all implemented. Their tax policy, their spending policy, their foreign policy, their domestic policy, all passed the Congress and was implemented, and we have the largest gap between the wealthy and the poor since 1929. We have a foreign policy disaster that doesn't even need an explanation it is so atrocious. From the Middle East and all over the world, we are less safe today than we were just a few years ago because of this philosophy on government. They have run down government for a decade and a half to two decades now, and when you turnaround and you need health care or you need FEMA to be able to react to a natural disaster, it doesn't work because you ran it into the ground. The philosophy doesn't work. It is not enlightened. It is not flexible. It is eight key words, and if you can't fit the whole problem of society and the complexity of society into those eight key words, then it doesn't work. And that is what we have seen happen. We need a government that can change, that is responsive, that adapts to the needs of our society. And our conservative friends have wrecked it. Now we have the keys to the car, and we are trying to do some things that are constructive. And we understand that they were incapable, Madam Speaker, of governing, but it doesn't mean that they should then impede us from doing it. That is what we want to do here. Port security, border security, fire grants, police, first responders, all of these things are in this bill that our friends filibustered, and you will see our agenda implemented. You have already seen it in the increase in the minimum wage. You will see it with more community health clinics. You will see it with funding of Head Start. You will see it with Early Start and after-school programs, safer food. You will see it with transportation investments. You will see it from the Democratic Congress. Their agenda has been implemented over the last 6 years without anybody to stop them, and it doesn't work, period-dot. The field mouse is fast, but the owl sees at night.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Meek. It's always an honor and a pleasure to be with you. If I don't get an opportunity to, I'd like to wish you a happy Father's Day.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. All we really have to do is talk to some of the soldiers who are over there and who have come back, which I'm sure most of us have. And when they explain what's going on on the ground, it's mind-boggling to think in cities of 140, 150, 160, 170,000 we've got American troops, for example, on the west side of the city, with 1,000 Iraqi troops on the west side of the city, and 1,000 on the east side and 1,000 Iraqis; 2,000, 4,000 total for the whole city, 2,000 of the 4,000 being American. How are you going to control a city of 170,000 people? And a surge of an extra 1,000 or 2,000 is not going to make a difference. It's going to make it worse. This surge is not the first time we've tried this. This is like the fourth time, and every time that we've tried a surge in certain areas there has been an increase in the number of daily attacks, not a decrease, because it incites the area, and you still don't have enough. And we've all said from the beginning, if we went in there with 3- or 400,000 troops, where we were able, after the statue fell, to secure the State, to secure the country of Iraq, that would have been a different story, and all the looting was going on and the museums and everything, and then Secretary Rumsfeld said, well, they're just blowing off steam. At that point, you lost control and it went all downhill from there. But my point is that you talk to these soldiers who are on the ground, and they see that they can't handle this situation the way it is and that the only way to do it is through diplomacy, is to try to patch up some of these political problems, which gets worsened because of the innocent civilians that are dying in Iraq, which makes them not like us.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. In a very practical way, we're pushing. I mean, I think this Congress has done everything that it can do, but if we're not getting any help from our Republican friends, a couple have shown great courage to try to end this thing, but not getting the support where we can override the President's veto. Now, this is the stark reality that is frustrating for all of us, the Speaker I know for sure, and all of us, is that we're trying to end this war. The first bill we passed had a hard deadline. The second bill we passed had a goal to get out. The President still vetoed that, Mr. Speaker, and we're trying the best we can within this institution to move this iceberg, as you say. But the President consistently vetoes these bills that we're trying to pass. And so now we're to the point where we've got to figure out what's the best we can do, and it looks like the best we can do is try to get him to at least have these benchmarks that are in there, report back in September, July and September, with some of this, and get our veterans the support and the funding they need. Nobody likes that. I don't like it. I don't even know if I'm going to vote for it, to be quite honest. I'm so frustrated with the President at this point, but we've got decisions to make as to can we take a step in the right direction even though it's not as far as we want to go. But I think this is a call, Mr. Speaker, for the citizens of this country to step out and step up, not the ones that we see wearing the pink, not the ones that we see with the bull horn, but if we're going to end this war, it's going to be average people who support our philosophy but have yet to say anything, and not in your district or my district but in districts where their representatives come down here and support the President. You can't sit on the sidelines on this one, not as a politician, but as a citizen you've got to come out here and help us do this, and I think there needs to be a direct call to a action. Just to let you know, Mr. Speaker, we are sending a letter to the U.S Conference of Catholic Bishops from me and several other Members, asking them to reengage the war issue; that this is the issue of our day and that they need to be more active and they need to get involved in their local parishes and demand that their citizens get off the pews and start participating and getting legislators to move off the dime. We've got to do this by September, or in the fall while we're beginning the process for 2008. Or we're going to continue to be here and legislators are going to continue to get away with voting to support the President when 71 percent of the American people don't think he's handling this job properly.

Mr. RYAN of Ohio. While we are hitting on the war, I think it is important for us to maybe go back and reevaluate why the Democrats have the position of redeploy out, wind this thing down, and I think it is important for us to go through some of the numbers. Mr. Meek had already mentioned the number of troops killed. We have had another nine that were killed in the last couple of days, and our hearts and prayers go out to all the families that have been affected by this and who have lost soldiers over there. The most heartbreaking thing we have to do is go to these funerals and see a 20-year old kid who has been married for a year with a 7-month-old son or daughter. It is heartbreaking when we don't even know what winning is. Ask the President. What is winning this war? What does that mean now? We can't really get an answer from the President. But a couple of things, why we think the President and his policies have made this situation worse. The number of insurgents in Iraq in 2003 was 5,000. The number of insurgents in Iraq in March of 2007 is 70,000, all Sunni, mostly Sunni. What I love now is the President is starting to say, Mr. Speaker, ``bin Laden is now saying we need to attack Americans in Iraq. See why we got to stay there?'' No kidding. Right? No kidding. Bin Laden? Of course. We have 150,000 soldiers in a war zone. Of course, bin Laden is going to say go hit them over there. But the problem is that we are creating more terrorists. And if you are trying to win the hearts and minds of people, okay, the number of civilian casualties in Iraq since the invasion, estimates range from 54,000 to 76,000. Those are innocent civilians in Iraq. Do you think we are going to be able to go over there and win their hearts and minds if we are killing innocent civilians with the bombs we are dropping? This needs to be won diplomatically. When it needs to be won diplomatically, it becomes very difficult when you have 50,000 to 75,000 civilian casualties. One more thing, and then I will wrap my portion up here. The average daily number of daily attacks by insurgents in July of 2003 was 16 daily attacks in 2003. The number of daily attacks by insurgents between November of 2006 and February of 2007, 149. From 16 to 149. We are aggravating the situation. We are making it worse, and the surge is making it worse. I yield back to my friend.