[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 73 (Friday, June 9, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H3716-H3721]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California). Under 
the Speaker's announced policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Meek) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the 
minority leader.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor being before the 
House once again. As you know, the 30-something Working Group, we come 
to the floor as often as possible to not only share with the Members 
what is going on as it relates to legislation here in Washington, D.C., 
but also what is not going on on behalf of the American people.
  And hopefully we can put forth ideas and extending the arm to work in 
a bipartisan way on behalf of the American people. So we are glad to 
come to the floor week after week. Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
thank the Democratic Leader for allowing us to have this hour, and also 
our Democratic Whip, Mr. Steny Hoyer, and Mr. James Clyburn, who is our 
chairman of our Democratic Caucus, and Mr. Larson, who is our vice-
chair.
  I think it is important that we come to the floor to share a unified 
message from this side, that we are willing and able. We have the will 
and the desire to work on behalf of the American people in general. Not 
just Democrats, not just Republicans or independents, but the American 
people in general, to make sure the people of good will prevail in 
their everyday lives.
  If they are a veteran, if they are an individual that has fallen on 
hard times, if they run a small business in this country, if they have 
a mid-sized business that they want to turn into a big business, we 
want to be able to be of some assistance as it relates to legislating 
here on behalf of the American people.
  Also, I think it is important that we do not leave our children 
behind. Even though they cannot vote, many of them are under the age of 
18 years old, not eligible to vote, I think it is important that we 
stand for them.
  There are a number of things that I am going to try to touch on 
today, Mr. Speaker, to make sure that we can cover all of, just about 
all of what is happening and what is not happening here in Washington, 
D.C.
  Mr. Speaker, I took the time when we were on break last week to 
really look closely at some of the comparisons, because when you are 
trying to figure out what is happening to the issues that we all came 
to Washington to work so hard on, you have to compare, it is almost 
like you have to have, Mr. Speaker, a side-by-side what we call it here 
in Washington, D.C. to compare.
  It is almost like for someone who goes to the grocery store to buy an 
orange, I am from Florida, nine times out of ten, you are going to pick 
up those two oranges if they are from two different orange groves and 
kind of compare, to see if it is an orange.
  You are not going to grab an apple and grab an orange and start 
saying, well, which one looks like an orange. But I must say here in 
Washington, D.C., it is almost like an orange and an apple experience, 
because we are so far apart as it relates to working together on many 
of these issues that are facing our constituents back home, and the 
American men and women that are overseas fighting on our behalf.
  Mr. Speaker, I looked at the issue of fiscal responsibility, and I 
could not help but notice, within the House GOP budget, that the budget 
calls for deficits as far as the eye can see, never achieving a 
balance. And adding another $2.3 trillion to the national debt over 5 
years, compared to the Democratic alternative and the Democratic 
philosophy, if we can work in a bipartisan way to be able to balance 
this budget, balance the budget over the next 5 years, making sure that 
we can balance it over the next 6 years on a pay-as-you-go philosophy.

                              {time}  1630

  Mr. Speaker, I will talk a little bit about that as I continue to go 
down this chart. We believe that we can balance this budget because we 
have done it before, unlike the Republican conference or the Republican 
side of the House which has not.
  There was a surplus when the Republicans took control of this House 
or when the President went into office and President Bush went into 
office. Now we are into record deficits, and I think it is important 
that we point this out. And I have charts to be able to break that down 
for the Members.
  I think it is also important to think about making America safer here 
at home. I looked at the Republican budget, and I could not help but 
notice that it made homeland security cuts by $488 million this year, 
and it is up to $6.1 billion over the next 5 years of cuts to homeland 
security. And it is not much better than the President's budget that 
came out of this House. It estimated that port security grants and rail 
transit security grants will all be rolled into a smaller program. And 
I think that that is something that is going to hurt a lot of local 
communities.
  On the Democratic side in our budget and our motion to recommit of 
our philosophy as it relates to what we should be doing by the homeland 
is to provide $6.5 billion more over the next 5 years for homeland 
security here by guaranteeing funding for border security, port 
security, and first responders which are so important to so many 
counties and local governments that are out there on the frontline that 
have to respond to the American people in their time of need.
  Adequate funding for veterans. This is another point, Mr. Speaker, I 
will elaborate a little bit more during this hour of the facts. Like we 
always say

[[Page H3717]]

during the 30-something Working Group, this is not what we came up 
with. These are the facts and they are backed up by the Congressional 
Record or either a very credible third-party validator. We start 
looking at that and we look at the Republican budget that passed off 
this floor. It cuts funding to veterans health care by $6 billion over 
the next 5 years. The Democratic alternative budget provides $8.6 
billion more over the next 5 years for veterans health care.
  Then there is the GOP budget. It also rejects an increase in TRICARE, 
which is a health care program for veterans for more than 3 million 
military retirees and their families. These are increased costs that 
the Republican budget has put on them, and I am going to talk about 
that a little further. It targets, as it relates to tax cuts for the 
middle class, the Republican budget follows the President's budget. 
That goes back to the rubber-stamp Congress, the rubber-stamp 
Republican Congress that I talked so much about, Mr. Speaker, and it 
also happens to be a reality.
  When you look at this issue, you have to look at it from the 
standpoint of the President's budget which provides $2.5 trillion in 
tax cuts over the next 10 years targeted for the very wealthiest 
Americans, the wealthiest taxpayers versus the Democratic alternative 
that provides $105 billion for the middle class tax relief such as 
child tax credit, marriage penalty relief and the 10 percent individual 
bracket.
  I think it is also important for me to point out here as it relates 
to the issue of college, making college more affordable, and I had to 
look at this part of the budget and this is another area, Mr. Speaker, 
that I am going to talk a little bit more about because we have so many 
people and some middle-aged people. In America, we do know that we have 
some Americans that do not go from high school straight into college 
because they have to, nine times out of ten, get a job to be able to 
build up the money to go to college, to be able to maybe take care of a 
family member that is up in age and they need that kind of assistance. 
Or they cannot go off to college or they have to go to a community 
college before they can go to a 4-year institution. Everyone does not 
have a turn-key life. So we have to look at policy that is going to be 
able to help all Americans, not just some.
  When we look at the Republican majority budget, what it had in it, 
this is straight from the budget, this is not anything that I have put 
together to have some sort of lean towards making our proposals look 
better than the Republican majority. These are just the facts here in 
the House. When you look at it, it is identical. Once again, Mr. 
Speaker, and I think it is important, the reason why I have this rubber 
stamp back here, that I will proudly bring out in just a few moments, 
is the fact that the President hands down what he would like to, the 
policies that he would like to have here in this Congress, he would 
like for us to rubber-stamp. And the Republican majority honors him in 
rubber-stamping exactly the way it was written.
  I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, in America, in the people's 
House, the only House that you have to be elected to, that you cannot 
be appointed to, over in the Senate you can be appointed by a Governor, 
that the people should have an opportunity to be heard. Once again, not 
just Democrats, not just Republicans, not just Independents, not just 
folks who vote, but the American people should be represented. And for 
them to be represented appropriately, I think it is important that we 
have the kind of conversation and dialogue here that is going to 
benefit all Americans. And in this case it is identical to the 
President's budget.
  It freezes Pell Grants for colleges and denies more than 460,000 
students low-cost loans. This also is on the top of $12 billion cuts in 
the student loan funding that Republicans just enacted. It is already 
there. So what we are trying to do is, I believe, to turn that around. 
And I am going to talk about legislation that we have to turn that 
around. But as it relates to our alternative budget, it rejects the GOP 
cuts and higher education programs. It also lowers the costs of student 
loans by cutting the interest rate per student loan in the fall of 
2007. I think that is important.
  There are a lot of folks that are sending their kids off to college 
right now. There are a lot of folks that are writing letters for just 
$1,000 scholarships for local organizations because the costs of 
college have gone up. When we make these cuts here in Washington, DC, 
the State government has to make their cuts to the students and to the 
families that live down in those States, and I think it is important 
that we look at this. And I will talk about that a little further, 
explaining educational opportunities.

  I think it is important when you look at this part of the budget, 
identical to the Bush budget, well, that seems to be a common theme 
here, which underfunds No Child Left Behind by 39 percent, denies extra 
math and reading help to 3.7 million children and shutting 2 million 
children out of after-school programs.
  On the Democratic side, our alternative provides 4.6 billion more 
dollars in 2007 and $35.3 billion over the next 5 years for education 
and training programs, more than the GOP budget. I think this is 
important for families and parents like myself who know what it means 
that when your kids go to school you have to pay for aftercare. And 
nine times out of ten that aftercare is like $150 to sometimes $200 a 
week. Some of you parents know what I am talking about.
  Unfortunately, Members of the Republican side of this House do not 
understand what you are talking about and opt to invest $87,000 in tax 
cuts to millionaires. So I think it is important that we look at this 
as it relates to a comparison. One other thing that I think is 
important and justified here in this case, Mr. Speaker, that we roll 
right into what this means as it relates to the dollars and cents 
before we get into some of the policy issues that are called out here. 
We can get right down to the nitty-gritty by saying over the last 5 
years President Bush and also the Republican majority here came in and 
had a projected surplus in the next 10 years when the President took 
office of $5.6 trillion, $5.6 trillion; and that has now turned into a 
$3.3 trillion deficit.
  Now, it would be kind of hard to say, well, the Democrats took us 
down that line and they made us do this and they made us do that. I can 
tell you that is not true. That is not true. We have tried to 
substitute a number of policies that would save this country in the 
future and would save our future for our children so they are not 
paying exorbitant tax and fees that this Republican Congress has put on 
them and have put on the American people. It affects everything. It 
affects Social Security. It affects education. It affects our way of 
being able to come up with alternative fuels. It affects the way our 
troops are treated when they come back. It affects our veterans. It 
affects everyday families.
  The decisions that are made here on this floor as it relates to the 
budget and as it relates to the spending affects everyone, all 
Americans. It affects everyone that depends on this government to 
govern, not to follow, not to rubber-stamp but to govern. And, Mr. 
Speaker, I think that is very, very important. When you look at the tax 
bill that, obviously, the President wanted and the Republican majority 
rubber-stamped, I think it is important that you look at the fact that 
we have now mortgaged our children's future.
  The Republicans have passed this tax cut which has sunken us deeper, 
$80 billion deeper into debt over the next 10 years and will benefit 
the few, the wealthy. I think it is also important for us to understand 
that we have to have fiscal discipline.
  Let's just talk a little bit about that because I want to make sure 
that everyone understands what we are talking about here. Well, here is 
a chart again, Mr. Speaker. It is so self-explanatory. We just continue 
to use it and use it and use it. The unfortunate part, Mr. Speaker, is 
that the numbers will change soon. It will not change in the way of 
saying we are doing better. No, it will change in that we are doing 
worse. When I say ``we,'' I am saying led by the Republican majority 
here in the House. Two hundred twenty-four years, $1.01 trillion 
borrowed from foreign nations since the President has been President, 
President Bush and the Republican majority has been in control.

[[Page H3718]]

  Over the last 4 years, 2001 to 2005, President Bush and the 
Republican Congress, that is under his picture, have borrowed $1.05 
trillion. I do not care, there is no way you can explain how this is 
good. No Member, need it be Republican, the one Independent or Democrat 
on this floor, can explain how this can be good for the American 
people.
  Now, time after time I have asked for an explanation from Republicans 
during their time when they are on the floor to explain this. All I 
hear is cricket sounds. I look down the hall, no one is there. I am 
wondering where the fiscal conservatives in this House are as it 
relates to the Republican majority. I wonder where the leadership is as 
it relates to being able to turn this around.
  There has been, Mr. Speaker, no attempt and I mean no documented 
attempt to be able to turn this around. This is unprecedented, the 
first time in the history of the country. Now, this is not the first 
time in this century or the first time in the last 20 years or the 
first time in the last 200 years. This is the first time in the history 
of the Republic that any Congress and any President has borrowed $1.05 
trillion from foreign nations. The first time. The first time. I mean, 
it is not like, well, this happened a couple years ago. No. The first 
time in the history of this country.
  Should you be alarmed? You doggone right you should be alarmed. 
Forty-two Presidents could not do it; 224 years of a country with all 
of its challenges could not do it. But when you get President Bush in 
the White House and you get a rubber-stamp Republican majority here in 
the House of Representatives, they can do it. Unfortunately, if we 
continue with the same team that we have leading in this House and in 
the White House, this is going to continue to grow. And it is going to 
be very, very unfortunate because countries are going to start to 
disrespect this country because we do not have, not ``we,'' the 
Republican majority here in this House does not have the ability to 
govern and to govern in a way that it should following the President, 
unfortunately, on this issue where we could show clearly that this is 
not a winner.
  Did this chart come from the Democratic Caucus? I think not. These 
numbers came from the U.S. Department of the Treasury. So you can get 
on whatever Web site you want to get on and you can find this. You can 
definitely find it on www.HouseDemocrats.gov/30Something. All of these 
charts will be there. I suggest you download the chart and print it and 
show it to your friends because they need to know.

                              {time}  1645

  What does it mean when I say folks start to disrespect this country? 
We get Members coming in this chamber and people giving speeches 
throughout the country, burning all kinds of Federal jet fuel, talking 
about terror, talking about what you should be scared of.
  I can tell you right now, we need to be dealing with terror and we 
need to be dealing with it in a smart way and protect the homeland, and 
that is not happening right now. Take it from me, I am the ranking 
member on the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Oversight, and I can 
tell you, it is not happening right now. We have not issued one 
subpoena to be able to rein in individuals that are stealing from this 
government, contractors and individuals within the department, that is 
allowing it to happen. That is another Special Order that I will not 
get into right now.
  But if you want to talk about disrespecting the United States of 
America, this is not something that is foreign born or someone that 
released an audiotape or a videotape here. This is what happened right 
here on the floor.
  The borrowing that I talked about over the last 4 years, how did it 
happen? Japan, $882.8 billion, bought our debt. Japan did not say, hey, 
we want y'all to overspend; we want you to give tax cuts to 
millionaires and billionaires; we want you to do things that you cannot 
afford to do just because you can. Japan did not say, well, just 
because the President said we should do it that you should rubber stamp 
it. No, that is what the Republican Congress did, and we do need a 
change and we need alternatives. We have talked about those 
alternatives.
  China, $249.8 billion, they bought our debt, China, red China, 
Communist China.
  The U.K., want to talk about our ally and friend, yeah, they are our 
friends all right. They bought $223.2 billion of our debt. We did have 
the prime minister here. He addressed a joint session. I did not hear 
him, and I was reading his speech as he was up here, Mr. Speaker, 
giving his speech. He did not say, hey, keep spending in an 
irresponsible way so we can buy your debt and own a piece of the 
American apple pie. He did not say that, but the Republican Congress 
continues to rubber stamp President's Bush's policies to say that we 
are being fiscally responsible, meanwhile there is $1.05 trillion that 
we borrowed from foreign nations.
  Caribbean countries, $115.3 billion, bought our debt.
  Taiwan, $71.3 billion, little Taiwan. They are even in the game of 
getting part of this American apple pie. With the Republican Congress 
giving it away, they are willing to buy it up.
  Guess who we owe? We owe every last one of these countries that I 
have ripped off this chart so far. Canada, just north of us, $53.8 
billion; Korea, $66.5 billion; Germany, $65.7 billion.
  OPEC Nations, well, you know, Mr. Speaker, OPEC Nations, who are 
they? Oil producing countries whether it be Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, 
you name it, these countries are in this OPEC Nation, and they are even 
in the game of buying a piece of the American apple pie at $67.8 
billion.
  Well, I have this kind of flag here that is kind of draped over the 
United States of America, and I said we want to get back there, Mr. 
Speaker. I would urge the Members to do one of two things. One, work in 
a bipartisan way and pick up pay-as-you-go policies, as we have talked 
about and have put on this floor here in this House time after time 
again and saying that if you are going to give $1 billion to a 
contractor to do whatever he wants to do with it, without any little 
oversight, then doggone it, you better figure out how you are going to 
pay for it. If you are going to give tax cuts to folks who are not 
asking for them, you better show how you are going to pay for it, not 
just saying we will borrow from these foreign nations.
  We continue to borrow because we can borrow and make history in 4 
years that was not accomplished in over 224 years. No, we are going to 
make history. The Republican majority is going to make history in 4 
years at $1.05 trillion. That is a lot of money with a big T. 224 
years, $1.01 trillion. Forty-two Presidents could not even muster up 
that. If you want to get back to a balanced budget that I talked about 
earlier, that I am going to continue to pound on, then have a 
Democratic majority or work in a bipartisan way, one of the two.
  I have more faith in the fact of the Democratic majority getting the 
job done than the Republicans allowing us to work in a bipartisan way 
towards having a balanced budget.
  You want to talk about partisanship, partisanship over the budget is 
at the highest level that it could be, because you have one side with 
the will and the desire to balance the budget, and you have the other 
side, Republican majority, that says they want to balance the budget 
but do not have the will and the desire to do it. That is the side-by-
side on that. You have to have the will and the desire to do it.
  I cannot go to my daughter and say, Lauren, I want you to go out and 
play softball. Well, she may not have the will and the desire to play 
softball, but just because I have the will and desire does not 
necessarily mean that she has to have it.
  Well, guess what, on this side of the ball, we have the will and the 
desire to balance the budget. Not only do we have the will and the 
desire, history is on our side. History is on our side because we 
balanced the budget. We actually did it. The Democratic House did it 
without one Republican vote, not one. Maybe I could say maybe two, 
three, four--not one Republican vote. We balanced the budget and put 
this country in surplus. We could have dealt with Social Security, 
could have took it beyond the time it is supposed to have issues, could 
have made sure that veterans did not have to pay copayments, could have 
made sure that we could have been ahead as it relates, not to below the 
39 percent in funding Leave No Child Behind, could have provided more 
tax cuts for the middle class. It is what it is.

[[Page H3719]]

  And I would tell you, if folks want to get back to a balanced budget 
and not have these countries, in all due respect, in our pocket--these 
countries have their hand in our pocket, not because of the folks that 
are running around here trying to make a living every day. It is 
because of the Republican majority, what they have done.
  OPEC Nations got their hands straight in our pocket. Germany has 
their hand in our pocket at $6.7 billion, the U.S. taxpayers pocket. 
Korea $66.5 billion, they have their hands in our pocket. Taiwan, $71.3 
billion, have their hands in our pocket. Canada, $53.8 billion, have 
their hands in the American taxpayers' pocket. Caribbean countries, 
$115.3 billion, have their hands in the American taxpayers' pocket. The 
U.K., $223.2 billion, have their hands in the American taxpayers' 
pocket. And China have a hand-and-a-half in the American taxpayers' 
pocket and reaching for their credit card while they are at it at 
$249.8 billion.
  Japan has just outright snatched the wallet out of the back of the 
taxpayers pocket and grabbed someone's pocketbook and have their hand 
in the pocket of the U.S. taxpayers at $682.8 billion. Not because the 
American people went out there and said let us make sure that we spend 
money that we do not have and let us make records in 4 years in 
borrowing money from foreign nations. The Republican majority, they 
have rubber stamped the Bush administration policy and here we are.

  So what do we do? What we do is we make changes, and what we have 
tried to do on this side is do exactly that. It would be hard for me, 
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Republican Conference to come to this 
floor and speak with a straight face about the issue on the budget. I 
do not know. I would have to go into the bathroom and look in the 
mirror and practice because it would be hard for me to keep a straight 
face when I come to the floor to talk about the fact that I am a fiscal 
conservative and I care about the budget and responsible spending and 
making sure that we do not overspend and we are not like the others, we 
do not spend.
  Well, let me tell you something. The congressional record says that 
you spend. The American people are noticing that you spend and borrow, 
and spend and borrow, and spend, and when you cannot borrow anymore, 
you go to foreign Nations and you borrow.
  Well, this is what we have tried to do. Mr. Spratt's substitute 
amendment to House Concurrent Resolution 95, 2006 budget resolution, 
failed, 228 Republican votes against it. Not one voted for it. This is 
pay-as-you-go. Once again, if you are going to spend $1 million, where 
are you going to get the $1 million from? That is all we ask. It was 
identified, and this opportunity for the Republican majority to vote 
for fiscal opportunity, no. They said no.
  Mr. Spratt again, amendment to House Concurrent Resolution 393, 2005 
budget resolution, failed. Republicans, 224 voted no. Zero voted for 
it. Reminds me, Mr. Speaker, of when we balanced the budget, zero. It 
is almost like the old saying, put your money where your mouth is. 
Well, put your vote where your mouth is. That is what I am saying and 
that is what the American people are going to say hopefully in 
November.
  Bottom line is folks can come to the floor, we can have these big 
floor debates and come close to making each other mad, but in the final 
analysis, when the budget is printed and the deficit continues to go 
up, the fact is is that the Democrats are for fiscal responsibility and 
the Republican majority, rubber stamping President Bush's policy, is 
for continuing to borrow from foreign Nations and putting them in the 
pockets of the American people.
  Now, I think it is important that we continue to talk about this 
issue as it relates to veterans. Veterans of all people, despite the 
serious problem in military recruiting, the President's budget will 
increase health care costs and deny health care for millions of 
veterans and military retirees. I think it is important that we look at 
these increases that have happened for a million veterans for the 
fourth year in a row, the budget rises, health care costs for 1 million 
veterans, by imposing new fees.
  For most of them, veterans' cost will rise some $2.6 billion over the 
next 5 years and also drive at least 200,000 veterans out of 
assistance. It will double the copayments for prescription drugs from 
$8 to $15 and impose an enrollment fee of $250 a year for a Category 7 
or 8 veteran, who makes very little, makes $26,000 a year.
  I think it is also important for us to look at the increases in 
health care costs for military retirees. The budget increased TRICARE 
health care premiums, which is the health care provided to the military 
for $3.1 million, for the Nation's military retirees under 65. I think 
it is important that we look at these premiums and look at what they 
are costing the folks that signed up to defend this country and allow 
us to salute one flag. I think it is also important for us to look at 
what we are talking about on this side of the aisle Mr. Speaker.
  The GI Bill of Rights for the 21st Century that has been offered here 
on the Democratic side will just do the reverse as it relates to what I 
just mentioned. It makes health care accessible and affordable for our 
veterans and improves veterans' health care. It improves mental health 
for returning soldiers.
  A number of the IEDs, improvised explosive devices, I think is going 
to affect a number of our troops, those that have fallen victim to it 
and survived, injured, those that have witnessed IEDs going off, those 
that have to worry every day when they drive down one of the streets in 
Iraq, will they be hit by an IED.

                              {time}  1700

  Some of that stuff is going to come back home, and it is home, and we 
need to be able to deal with it on a psychological standpoint because 
it affects many of our families. These are individuals that have signed 
up and said they wanted to serve our country, and they are serving.
  It also blocks the increase in prescription drug copayments and the 
enrollment fee for veterans. I think it is important that we do that. 
And on this side of the aisle, we have that legislation that has been 
put forth through our frustration of the fact that we can't work in a 
bipartisan way. The only way we can work in a bipartisan way, Mr. 
Speaker, is if the Republican leadership allows bipartisanship to work 
in the House.
  Now, how does that happen? Well, when you have a conference 
committee, how about inviting the Democratic members to that conference 
committee, or at least letting us know where the meeting is? We have 
day after day, especially this time of year, when we have a number of 
pieces of legislation stacked up on top of one another. And I just want 
to make sure that I break this down so everyone understands. When we 
pass a bill here in the House, and the Senate passes a similar bill, 
they have what they call a conference committee, and that conference 
committee sits down and works out the differences between those bills. 
Well, that is not a common thing here in the House. Yes, it would be a 
majority of Republicans that will be on that conference committee, but 
there are some Democrats on that conference committee. And we have a 
number of Democrats, when the meeting is set and the decision is made, 
that are not even told about it.
  That is not working in a bipartisan way, and that is why our 
Democratic leader has said that when Democrats take control of this 
House, we will work in a bipartisan way and we will make sure that the 
American people are represented. If they have a Republican representing 
them here, then they will be represented. Because, guess what? It will 
not be a stonewall. It will be a democracy in the way that we are 
supposed to carry out business here in this House, of making sure that 
everyone benefits. That is true bipartisanship.
  It also provides benefits to veterans who have earned and deserve 
respect. It ends the disability veterans tax. It reduces waiting time 
on disability claimants and also expands outreach to veterans.
  Now, this is very, very important. We are talking about individuals 
coming back and moving back into their community, going to church or 
synagogue, or what have you, to mosque, what have you, and when they 
come back home to their families, we are saying that we want a 
government, and the Department of Veterans Affairs that will work with 
that veteran, will work

[[Page H3720]]

with that family in making sure that because they signed up, he or she 
signed up to go out on behalf of this country and fight on behalf of 
this country, that we have their back. That is the least that we can 
do.
  That is what this GI Bill of Rights of the 21st Century will do, and 
I would urge the Members to go on Housedemocrats.gov and get a copy of 
that piece of legislation so that you can take a look at it and 
hopefully endorse it and hopefully help us pass it. We will need that 
very much.
  I said I would talk about the student loans, Mr. Speaker, and I think 
it is important. We have a piece of legislation, and when I say ``we,'' 
the Democratic side, we have a piece of legislation that reverses what 
the Republican majority has done with the endorsement of the Bush 
administration. Of course, whatever the President wants, the Republican 
majority in this House will give it to him.
  Earlier this year, the Congress cut $12 billion out of the Federal 
student loan program in order to help finance tax breaks for the 
wealthiest Americans. I think it is also important that most of the 
savings generated from the cuts to student loans continues the practice 
of forcing students and parents to borrow, in many cases to pay for the 
expensive increase in the rates as relates to student loans. By 
increasing college loans, parents have to go out and borrow.
  Well, now, the Republican majority is pushing their philosophy on the 
American people. Because the Republican majority has decided to take 
away from the student aid and student loan program to give special 
interest tax breaks to wealthy individuals here in the United States of 
America, the American people are now forced to go to the credit union. 
They are forced to put their house up even a little bit more to pay for 
college because this majority, coupled with the President's policies, 
has done this.
  We are going to reverse that. We are going to reduce and replenish 
the dollars that were taken out of the budget and were placed in 
special interest projects that the Republican majority did, and it is 
called Reversing the Raid on Student Aid Act. It is H.R. 5150. It would 
help make college more affordable. It would cut interest rates in half 
as relates to the borrowers, those that are borrowing money; and also 
it would subsidize student loans from a fixed rate of 6.8 to a fixed 
rate of 3.4. It also cuts the rates on parent loans for undergraduate 
students from a fixed rate of 8.5 to a fixed rate of 4.25.

  I think it is important for us to look at those numbers, because that 
is a drastic cut, taking us back to families being able to afford to 
send their kids to college. Under the bill, a typical undergraduate 
student has something like $17,500 in debt and would save $5,600 over 
the life of his or her loan. I think it is important for us to look at 
that, Mr. Speaker. And that is the complete opposite of what has been 
put forth thus far.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us to look at the issue 
on energy, but I wanted to make sure I went through my list here that I 
said I would go through. We talked about fiscal responsibility, we have 
talked about veterans, we have also talked about making college more 
affordable; and, yes, Mr. Speaker, we are on the issue of energy.
  I think when you start looking at energy, you can't look at investing 
in the Middle East. We want to invest in the Midwest. When we invest in 
the Midwest, it is investing in America and not just investing in 
special interests. The Republican majority way of doing things, and 
also the Bush White House way of doing things is to sit down with oil 
companies and cut secret deals, to have them write the energy policy in 
this country, to trust oil companies to make the decisions and run the 
energy policy here in the United States of America.
  Well, the folks didn't sign up for oil companies to have a vote here 
on this floor. The American people didn't go vote one early Tuesday 
morning to allow someone from ExxonMobil to come in here and vote on 
the floor.
  Case in point: again, Washington Post, third-party validator, 
November 16, 2005, front page: ``White House documents showed 
executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's 
energy task force in 2001, something long suspected by 
environmentalists but denied as recently as November of 2005 last week 
by industry officials testifying before Congress. The document obtained 
this week by The Washington Post shows that officials from ExxonMobil 
Corp., and Phillips, Shell Oil Company, and B.P. of America met in the 
White House complex with Cheney aides who were developing a national 
energy policy, part of which became law, part of which is still being 
debated here in Congress.''
  I think it is important that we look at it from that standpoint. And 
while I am on the individuals who are saying that they want to help so 
much in alternative fuels, take a look at this. Nothing like third-
party validators. I love them. I really do, Mr. Speaker. I love third-
party validators because the reason you have to have them is that some 
of this stuff is just hard to believe.
  Someone may be in their office saying, I do not know what that Member 
from Florida is talking about right now. Well, I want to show them as 
many third-party validators as possible, because it is truly 
unbelievable. When I was elected to Congress some 4 years ago, I didn't 
think we would even be in the posture we are in now because I thought 
maybe bipartisanship would prevail, or common sense on behalf of the 
country would prevail. But what has happened is that because special 
interests, through the K Street Project, where special interests had an 
opportunity to have access into this process that was so-called no 
longer going on, we are where we are now. That article I just read.
  And here is a picture of a gas pump. We talk about alternative fuels, 
and we have CEOs going on the ``Today Show'' and all these other little 
shows and all talking about, oh, we believe in alternative fuels. Well, 
as you can see, you have your Regular, Special, and then you have your 
Super Plus, then you have this thing called E-85, which is ethanol, 
which is an alternative fuel. Right here in the United States of 
America.
  Well, I want you to pay very close attention to what these two 
stickers are saying here. Basically, it is saying that you cannot use 
your ExxonMobil card to buy E-85. That is interesting. You can walk in 
that ExxonMobil place and buy, what, a bag of chips with your card? You 
can go in there and buy a case of soda, if you want to. Some 
individuals even go in and buy a pack of cigarettes with their 
ExxonMobil card. But you can't buy E-85, which is an alternative fuel.
  Now, I mean, yes, they are a company and all, and they can do what 
they want to do. But you know what is different about ExxonMobil and 
everyone else, not just that company, but oil companies in general? 
Man, they are backed and certified by this Republican majority here. 
They are getting record-breaking tax breaks and gifts from this House. 
Man, they can't give the oil companies enough. I mean, goodness 
gracious, access in the White House, they get to sit down with the 
administration and talk about how it should be written: on this line, 
this is what we want. No, we shouldn't do that because, you know, I 
don't know.
  Now, I am not a Member of Congress with a conspiracy theory, but 
record-breaking profits, record-breaking subsidies and gifts given to 
the oil industry? Some may say on behalf of innovation. I say it has a 
lot to do with the record-breaking profits, especially when they do not 
have to spend their money, spend the taxpayers' money, and the 
shareholders run away and laugh, going to the bank, but they are not 
willing to allow people who come to their station to use their 
ExxonMobil card to buy E-85, which is an alternative fuel. These are 
the individuals who have access into this Republican majority and into 
the White House.
  Let's talk about the profits. Wow, let's look at this. We said that 
meeting happened in 2001 in the White House complex. In 2002, these are 
the oil companies' record profits: $34 billion in profits. I think 
their policy is working, for them. $59 billion in profits. I think it 
is getting better. I think that was a good meeting. $84 billion in 
2004. $84 billion in profits. Man, I am glad I went to that meeting, 
that task force in the Republican Congress with the rubber-stamp that 
made that happen. $113 billion. Wow, I can't wait until the 2006

[[Page H3721]]

numbers when they come in. I think we can go out and get about eight 
more Lear jets and I will take that home that I've been dreaming about.
  You know what it means? It is on the backs of the taxpayers. And I 
want to make sure everyone sees this chart and understands what is 
going on, because I am also hopping mad, Mr. Speaker. I can tell you 
that for those of us who serve in public service, we wish we would have 
a retirement like this after going to all those town hall meetings, 
going out talking to all those American people and coming here early in 
the morning, leaving late at night, working every day, and then here we 
are.
  Now, I am not going to identify him as an individual, I am just 
saying it is what it is, and this is what is happening: $398 million in 
a retirement package and $2 million in tax breaks. A $2 million tax 
break. That is how you get rewarded.
  Now, it goes against logic, Mr. Speaker, for someone to say, you 
know, we are for finding alternative fuels and we are for saving the 
taxpayers money, but meanwhile they are making record-breaking profits. 
I wonder what the speech that they give not on the ``Today Show'' or 
not on one of the news shows, I wonder what the speech is that they 
give before their shareholders.

                              {time}  1715

  The speech that they are giving is saying thanks to the Republican 
majority in the House, thanks to the President of the United States, 
the future looks good. We are going to have a great year.
  I think it is important for us to look at investing in the Midwest 
versus the Middle East, and E-85 is a big part of the plan. I want to 
bring Members' attention to this document that they can find on 
HouseDemocrats.gov and how we can start making ourselves energy 
independent in a matter of years. It's not just a philosophy and not 
just a speech. It is not someone just saying maybe one day we could, 
but saying we can.
  In this document it says we are looking to increase production of 
American-made biofuels, using things like corn and sugarcane, sugar 
beets, things that we have right here, coal. Alternative fuels that we 
have here in the United States. We do not need to go to foreign 
countries and hear from people from South America and the Middle East, 
and having the President say it's not us, it is the fact that the 
American people are addicted to oil. I mean, that is a statement that I 
think you need to let sink in.
  It also will make sure that the biodiesel, that we have a way to be 
able to increase that, expand tax credits for ethanol and biodiesel 
through 2015, and increase tax benefits to small biofuel producers. It 
expands also the market for distribution of biofuels. That is going to 
be important, Mr. Speaker.
  Oil companies are just not going to do it because it is the right 
thing to do. We are going to have to make them do it so we can wean 
ourselves off of this addiction to oil. We want to give them an 
alternative. We do not just want to talk about it, we want to give the 
American people an alternative so they can move in that direction.
  We talk about increasing the number of gas stations offering E-85 
through new initiatives and requirements to make sure that we get the 
oil companies to do so.
  In 7 years, 75 percent of all cars made in America would be flex fuel 
cars. Those are cars that can take the E-85 and can take regular gas. I 
think it is important for us to head in that direction. I think it is 
important for the future of our country, and I think it is important to 
have a true debate and a true philosophy towards alternative fuels and 
saving money.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important for us to be able to do the 
things that we talk about and we preach about. The Republican majority 
is going to have to drop this stamp. It is going to have to give it up. 
You are going to have to go to group and say ``We can no longer rubber 
stamp whatever the President of the United States sends to the 
Congress.'' The President wants tax cuts for wealthy Americans, they 
have to say Mr. President, we cannot do it.
  Now for the Republican majority to have group, it is going to have to 
make a change in philosophy. They may have to work in a bipartisan way. 
They may even have to take a Democratic proposal, the pay-as-you-go 
philosophy, and make a change. I personally feel the Republican 
majority is not capable of doing that.
  I have been on this floor going on 3 years. If I thought it made a 
difference in the Republican majority and encouraging them to work in a 
bipartisan way, then I would feel a little more encouraged, but I do 
not. I think the Republican majority knows exactly what the 30-
something Working Group talks about when we come to the floor. We talk 
about fiscal responsibility and respecting hardworking Americans. We 
talk about making sure that we do right by our children and that we 
educate our children at all levels, whether it be K-12 experience, 
higher education, postgraduate, making sure that we have the workforce 
to compete with other countries that are competing against us.
  I am not talking about competing against the school down the street 
or the school in the other county. We are competing against other 
countries as it relates to math and the sciences. That is talk for the 
Republican majority. We have a true mission. We have the will and 
desire on this side, through our innovation agenda which is on 
HouseDemocrats.gov, the Republican majority has to stop rubber 
stamping.
  And I can tell you right now, they can't help it. They just continue 
to hit the rubber stamp. Let's not even have a committee hearing, let 
us just get this bill to the floor and get it out because that is what 
the President wants. We have a number of issues that the Republican 
Congress has rubber stamped. One was $1.05 trillion in record-breaking 
borrowing from foreign nations, rubber stamped, no problem. Deficits as 
far as the eye can see. Yes, you can have all of the study groups and 
all of the folks that write documents, and you can have all of the 
Republican Members come to this floor, but the reality is that this 
Congress has overseen the largest increase in the deficit in the 
history of the Republic, period.
  Go to Congressional Record, pick up the newspaper, it's there. The 
Republican Congress, the only way I think that the Republican Congress 
is going to change its ways is when we have real leadership in this 
House. And the only way we do that is when the Democratic Caucus 
becomes the majority caucus in this House on this floor to put in the 
policies that need to be placed in the statute books, in the budget, in 
committee and making sure that we put this country back on the fiscal 
track it should be on.
  How can I say that with boldness? Because we have done. It's almost 
like a job application. Someone tells you they can do something and you 
don't see it on their resume that they have actually done it, it is 
hard to believe they can do it. It is on our resume without one 
Republican vote balancing the budget.
  I think it is also important to get the Republican Congress of the 
rubber stamp so you're making sure that they don't have the ability to 
rubber stamp. When you have the ability to rubber stamp, you are in the 
majority and that is what the American people are going to have to 
speak to, Mr. Speaker.
  I am hoping we are able to see some change in philosophy here in the 
House. And we encourage the Members, if you want to share your thoughts 
or comments or you have other alternative ideas, we want to hear them 
because we believe in working in a bipartisan way. House_Democrats.gov/
30somethingworkinggroup.
  Mr. Speaker, with that, I would like to thank our working group that 
met earlier this week a couple of days ago, and I would also like to 
thank the staff and thank everyone that takes part in what we do and 
why we come to the floor. I would like to thank the Democratic leader 
for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, it was an honor addressing the House of Representatives.

                          ____________________