[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 81 (Wednesday, June 21, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H4390-H4396]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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 to come before the 
House once again and the 30-Something Working Group, as you know and 
the Members know, we come to the floor day after day to share with the 
Members what we are doing right and what we are doing wrong.
  So many times we focus on this side of the aisle on the plans that we 
have here on the Democratic side of the aisle in helping Americans to 
continue to prosper, need it be they are in small business or they wake 
up and go to work every day, educating our children, making sure that 
we have a healthy and prosperous and safe America.
  Before I get started, I know Mr. Ryan will be joining me momentarily, 
Mr. Speaker. I just want to share with the Members a few plans that we 
have on this side of the aisle that we would like to implement. The 
only thing that is stopping us from bringing these plans to the floor 
and implementing action, well, we are moving in the right direction 
with great force, is the fact that we are not the majority here, Mr. 
Speaker, to be able to bring these issues to the floor.
  As you know, in the past, I have talked about energy. I encourage 
Members to go to housedemocrats.gov to pick up a copy of our energy 
agenda, talking about alternative fuel, talking about bringing about 
flex vehicles in the industry to be able to allow more Americans to 
purchase vehicles that are flex vehicles that they can use E-85 and 
gasoline.
  Real security plan, it is there dealing with homeland security. We 
have already said on this side of the aisle if we are in the majority 
that we would implement all of the 9/11 recommendations to make America 
safer. This is a bipartisan commission, as the Members know, that was 
appointed, and this House was part of it, and they did outstanding 
work. Those recommendations have still not been fully implemented to 
protect America.
  We have our initiative that we have been trying to promote for the 
last 3 to 4 months in a very forceful way, which is allowing working 
Americans to be able to earn more money. It has been 9 years, Mr. 
Speaker, since the American people have received an increase as it 
relates to the minimum wage. It is very, very unfortunate that we have 
Americans that are working for $5.15 an hour. The minimum wage has been 
the same since 1997, which is now approaching 10 years.
  As you know, many Americans have suffered under the low minimum wage 
that we have now, that is throughout for individuals that are working 
every day, and I have a few facts here.
  Of the last 50-years, I mean, this is the lowest it has been in the 
last 50 years. Also, 6.6 million Americans will benefit from an 
increase in the minimum wage, and something that I must add, the 
Republican leadership has said that they vow not to raise the minimum 
wage again this year or next year. So I think that is something that 
the American people need to pay very close attention to.
  Three-quarters of the minimum wage workers are adults that are over 
the age of 20, many of whom are responsible for over half of the 
family's income. One day of work, it takes an entire day's wage for an 
earner to buy a tank of gas.
  Also, studies have shown, Mr. Speaker, that zero jobs have been lost 
when the minimum wage has been increased.
  Eighty-six percent of Americans do support an increase in the minimum 
wage. Twenty-one States have moved in the direction of increasing the 
minimum wage. I do not know what is going on here with the Republican 
majority in not moving in that direction to allow more American people 
to have money in their pocket to be able to provide for their families.
  We have talked many times on this floor in the 30-Something Working 
Group about the new weight that has been placed on the heads of the 
American people as they start to send their young people to college.

                              {time}  1730

  Just yesterday we had a town hall meeting downstairs in this 
building, in HC5 here in the Capitol Building, with some young people 
who are third-party validators with the student loans they have out 
now, Mr. Speaker. And this is very serious, because now people are 
starting to prepare their young people to go off to college in the 
month of August and late July, many of whom are now having to take out 
these student loans at a very high interest rate. They are going to end 
up paying almost $100 more a month in interest to pay for their 
college, and I think that is something we need to pay very close 
attention to.
  It is very unfortunate that on the majority side, Mr. Speaker, on the 
Republican side, all due respect to all the innovation that one tries 
to come up with on the other side of the aisle, it is costing the 
American people more, and it is putting our young people in debt in 
this country even before they can grab their college degree and earn a 
living. They are already, on average, somewhere around $25,000 or 
$30,000 in debt when they step across the stage. That is very, very 
unfortunate.
  We cut student aid here. We increase student loan rates here. The 
States in turn have to cut, and the cost of college is increased. It 
increases on these individuals. It is an increase on these individuals.
  I think it is also important, Mr. Speaker, for us to talk about the 
fact that we have the will and the desire on this side of the aisle to 
move America in the right direction. I talked about this last week, Mr. 
Speaker, and I think it is very, very important to bring this up here 
again today; that we are willing to move this country in the right 
direction, in a new direction, making sure that Americans have more 
opportunities.
  I think it is important for us to point out the fact that on this 
side of the aisle we have committed again to raising the minimum wage. 
We have committed to helping this country become energy independent, 
investing in the Midwest versus the Middle East within 10 years. We 
have also committed on this side of the aisle, I mentioned it earlier, 
to implementing all of the 9/11 recommendations.
  But one of our major commitments on this side, Mr. Speaker, and also 
to the American people, is that we have said that we are willing to 
bring this budget back into balance within a reasonable time; not that 
we are going to cut the deficit in half, or we are going to balance the 
budget, but we are going to be able to bring us out of this deficit 
spending that the Republican majority has led us into with record 
deficits as far as the eye can see.
  We have the resume. On our resume we have the accomplishment of being 
able to do that. We have accomplished that before in the past, Mr. 
Speaker, and I think it is something that one needs to pay very close 
attention to.
  When we say a commitment to making sure our fiscal house is in order, 
it is not a slogan. It is not something that someone says, well, the 
polls say you need to say you are going to bring spending under 
control. We have actually attempted to do that.
  You have seen this chart before. We can't talk about it enough, 
because the facts are in. Regardless of the floor speeches that may go 
on on the Republican side of the aisle, I think it is important for us 
to outline the fact that we have put our legislation where our mouths 
are.
  We have said that we want to see this House say that if you are going 
to spend, then spend in a way that almost every American family has to 
spend. If you are going to buy something, you have to know how you are 
going to pay for it. You can't put everything on a credit card. And 
what is unfortunate is that we have allowed other countries to be a 
part of our country financially not because the American people have 
made a bad decision, but it is because the majority and the White House 
have made some bad decisions.
  Here I have, Mr. Speaker, a PAYGO rule that on this side we have 
adopted; that we are willing to pay as we go. If you are going to buy 
it, you have to show how you are going to pay for it. It is not that 
you spend or you buy and

[[Page H4391]]

then you borrow. John Spratt, who is the ranking member on the Budget 
Committee, on the 2006 budget resolution, and this is the Congressional 
Record, this is not something the 30-something Working Group put 
together, this is rollcall vote 87, March 17 of 2005. Republicans voted 
228 against this pay-as-you-go amendment that we put forward.
  Again, Mr. Spratt and the ranking member's substitute amendment to 
House Concurrent Resolution 393, this is also rollcall vote number 91, 
March 25, 2004, 224 Republicans voting against pay-as-you-go on a rule 
we tried to put in place.
  When I say try, Mr. Speaker, that is all we can do at this particular 
point because until Democrats are in the majority, we are not going to 
be able to put this country into the fiscal position it should be in.
  Once again, Mr. Speaker, and I do say once again, I pull my chart 
out. This is almost my exhibit A here. Third-party validator. And the 
source that has given us this information happens to be the U.S. 
Department of the Treasury. Here we show that 42 Presidents over 224 
years were only able to borrow from foreign nations, and this is money 
that the United States has borrowed from foreign nations in 224 years 
and 42 Presidents, $1.01 trillion. Through World War I, World War II, 
the Great Depression, a number of other conflicts, slowdowns in the 
economy, and other issues that have faced this country, 42 Presidents 
have only borrowed $1.01 trillion.
  In 4 years, 4 years with President Bush, $1.05 trillion with the 
Republican Congress. Just in 4 years, Mr. Speaker. If someone came to 
me and said, Kendrick, you have to throw all the charts out but one, if 
you just wanted one chart, this would be the one that I would pick, Mr. 
Speaker, because I think it reveals what has happened here in this 
House, how it has been so easy for the Republican majority to put 
runaway spending on a credit card and allowed foreign countries to be 
able to own a part of the American apple pie.
  What is so very, very unfortunate here, as all of this borrowing has 
taken place, you would think that student loans would have a lower 
interest rate, you would think that alternative fuels would have an 
opportunity to be a part of the marketplace, and that we would be 
moving towards more cleaner-burning fuel. You would think that we would 
have a world-class health care system, and that companies as big as 
General Motors and as small as a mom-and-pop store that has five or six 
employees in it would be able to provide health care for their 
employees, and you would also think, Mr. Speaker, that a number of 
States would not be suing the Federal Government because of the 
underfunding of the Leave No Child Behind with all of the money that 
has been borrowed from foreign nations.
  But what has happened is that the superwealthy in this country have 
gotten the biggest tax cut in the history of the Republic. What has 
also happened is that Republicans have been allowed to spend in record-
breaking, I mean, just off the charts. For Republicans to come down 
here and blame Democrats for spending--I mean, really, I know it is 
kind of hard for them to keep eye contact with someone like me and 
those of us in the 30-something Group who knows better, who know what 
the facts show, that $1.05 trillion has been borrowed from foreign 
countries. They are weakening our country as they start to move and 
allow these other countries to be able to own so much of the American 
apple pie.
  And I will close with this before I yield to Ms. Wasserman Schultz, 
who came in before Mr. Ryan. I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, for 
us to look at it from this standpoint; that if you borrow money from 
someone, the relationship has changed. I heard someone from the White 
House say this morning on the Today Show we are the last standing 
superpower. Okay, well, you must be talking about militarily, because 
financially we are getting weaker every day under this administration's 
policy and the rubber-stamping of this Republican Congress.
  I think it is important that everyone understands that we have 
borrowed money from countries that we have never borrowed money from 
before in a record-breaking way. The Republican majority has done so 
without our help, but because they are in the majority, that has 
happened, and now they are looking at us under a different light.
  We still have budgets that are being passed here on this floor that 
is going to even make the American people more indebted to foreign 
nations, some that we have questions of their links to possible 
terrorism and other questionable measures.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to Ms. Wasserman 
Schultz.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  My good friend Mr. Meek really illustrates the point that we have 
been trying to drive home for all the time that I have been here now, 
and for several years before my arrival with the beginnings of the 30-
something Working Group, and that is that with the illustration that 
you just had up there, that literally we have racked up as much debt 
under this President than all the Presidents combined, all 42 before 
this President.
  That really is illustrative of the point we have been making; that 
America is truly going in the wrong direction, and that in order to 
right the ship, to start us on the path that Americans want us to be 
going down, we need to make sure that we elect Democrats in the fall 
that will no longer support the rubber-stamping that goes on in this 
institution on the other side of the aisle.
  Mr. Meek, I think what we try to do during our 30-something hour is 
show people what some of these more macroconcepts mean in terms of 
their daily lives. The economy, which the Republicans talk about so 
often, and actually, I guess, what it is, Mr. Ryan, is that they think 
that if they say it enough times, it will become true.
  I have heard so many of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
say, oh, the economy is great, the President said it, it is 
gangbusters, we are in the best shape we could possibly be in. Well, 
how is that possible if you have health care, gas, housing, and college 
costs that are all skyrocketing through the roof? I mean, the median 
family income has dropped every year of the Bush administration. The 
typical family is paying $1,200 more a year for health insurance, 
college tuition has gone up about 40 percent in real terms, gas prices 
have doubled to nearly $3 a gallon, housing is the least affordable it 
has been in 14 years, and real wages have been flat since 2001. And we 
have a chart that illustrates that graphically, but that is the economy 
that our constituents are living in.
  Now, maybe our Republican colleagues are living in some kind of 
alternative bizarro world. Is there an alternative universe that I am 
not aware of that perhaps some of them are living? Because this is what 
reality is: College tuition, up 40 percent under the Bush 
administration; gas prices up 47 percent; health care costs up 55 
percent; and median household income down by 4 percent.
  That is good? I don't know. I bet if we looked up ``good'' in the 
dictionary it wouldn't reflect any of this reality. Just have a hunch 
that Webster wouldn't define ``good'' this way. It wouldn't look like 
that.
  So I want, and I know we all want, to move this country in a new 
direction, and we have an agenda that would do that; that would deal 
with the health care crisis that we are in with 46 million Americans 
without health insurance, people who have to go to the emergency room 
for their primary health care. We would make sure that we increase the 
minimum wage, which hasn't been done since 1997. I mean, that is just 
unbelievable.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I just read today in a paper from American 
Progress, Scott Lilly, former staff member here, who wrote on the 
minimum wage, and I think he said in there that the minimum wage has 
the lowest value since the Eisenhower administration.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Fifty years.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. So it is unbelievable to think exactly where we are 
and the lack of leadership that we have here.
  On that one poster you just had up, President Bush said the economy 
is benefiting all Americans. I find that interesting. I had some 
steelworkers in my office just today from all over Ohio, and they 
certainly don't think that the current economy is benefiting all 
Americans, that is for sure.

[[Page H4392]]

  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We are going to take up the estate tax 
tomorrow, and as much of a deal as our Republican colleagues have made 
out of this, it benefits about 5,000 people in the country. I mean, 
5,000 people. And they are making this such a high priority. It is 
going to cost over $200 billion, and this is what they think is a 
priority, as opposed to dealing with health care, gas prices, college 
costs, and housing costs.

                              {time}  1745

  Yet another example is when they passed their tax reconciliation 
bill, their tax cut bill earlier this year. Just to give people an idea 
of what kind of benefit we truly doled out to most folks, if you made 
between $10,000 and $20,000, you would get enough back from the tax cut 
bill we passed earlier this year, enough back to buy a Slurpee.
  There are a whole lot of things that are a priority in my life and 
the lives of my constituents that I want to make sure that I can buy, 
my constituents want to be able to buy, and a Slurpee is not really 
mentioned in the letters written to me in my office.
  Now let's go down to the people making between $40,000 to $50,000 a 
year. That is a working family. They would get back enough to buy a 
gallon of gas. I think that probably most people would think if we are 
going to pass a tax cut measure, if we are going to really provide 
revenue and give folks back their hard earned tax dollars, it should be 
more than the value of a gallon of gas.
  But if you are fortunate enough to make more than $1 million, you get 
back the equivalent of a Hummer. Now that is something that most people 
could probably write home about. But how many people in America make 
more than $1 million.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And in the context of this, where do we get the 
money to give the millionaire to get the Hummer, we don't have it.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And tomorrow we are going to do more.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We are borrowing this money. That is the kicker. As 
Mr. Meek pointed out earlier in the hour, where we are getting the 
money from to borrow to give to the people who make more than a million 
a year, and now we have to pay interest on that money. This is what we 
pay in interest on the debt, just the red, $230-some billion compared 
to what we spend on education, homeland security and veterans.
  So a disproportionate amount of our budget dollars go just to pay 
interest on the debt. We get no value from that. We are just giving the 
Chinese, the Japanese, the OPEC countries, our money that they will 
continue to try to invest and take jobs away from us. We do need to go 
in another direction.
  I think this goes right to the heart. There are two belief systems 
here. There is the Republican belief system that says cut taxes for 
millionaires, give corporate welfare to the oil and health care 
industries, okay. That is their belief system. Let's make sure that the 
pharmaceutical industry has no ability or we don't have any ability to 
negotiate down the prices with them. That is their belief system.
  But the Democratic belief system is that everybody needs to pay their 
fair share and make some sacrifice. Why is it just the middle class, 
the poor and the small business owner making all the sacrifice while 
the wealthiest people get their tax break.
  Our belief system is that they need to pay their fair share, those 
making more than a million a year because they are benefiting from the 
largess of the United States of America, and we need to take that money 
and invest it into research and development, stem cell research, 21st 
century technologies, broadband for every household, making sure that 
our schools are functioning, No Child Left Behind is funded, and that 
we reduce the amount of interest that you have to pay on a college 
loan.
  Mr. Speaker, what the Republicans are doing with college loans is 
ridiculous.
  Now the Democrats want to cut student loan interest rates in half for 
both parents and students. The Republicans want to increase it and give 
tax breaks to millionaires. The Democrats are for raising the minimum 
wage. The Republicans will not bring a bill to the floor that actually 
passed out of committee that raises minimum wage.
  The Republicans are for giving corporate welfare to the oil industry. 
The Republican Congress put that money in, $16 billion went to energy 
companies, corporate welfare at this time of great profits.
  All of these things, it is about beliefs and we have our share of 
beliefs, they have theirs, and the American people are going to choose.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I would just like to go back to energy prices 
and gas prices. Just to zero in on one of the things that is the most 
galling about the direction that the Republican Congress has taken us 
in, gas prices are up.
  I am one of those minivan moms. I have little kids and when I go 
home, I am going to dance class and soccer games and shuttling them all 
over my district. It is a lot of driving. With three kids, you have to 
have a large enough vehicle to fit the car seats and the stuff and the 
athletic equipment and the dance bags, and so minivans are an essential 
piece of life when you are a mom or dad with little kids. It costs like 
$55 to fill up the gas tank of a minivan.
  I have reached the conclusion that the only explanation for the 
continued direction that our Republican colleagues have taken us in 
when it comes to gas prices and refusing to deal with the energy crisis 
and refusing to adequately fund, if fund at all, alternative energy 
sources is because they obviously haven't filled their own tanks of gas 
since gas pumps looked like this.
  This is a replica of a gas pump from the 1950s or thereabouts. I 
truly believe they must not pump their own gas, or the last time they 
did, pumps looked like this or they would be feeling the pain. You 
cannot stand there for as long as you stand there for squeezing the 
pump and watching the tally click by, $10, $20, $30, $40, $50. You 
can't do that, even if you can afford it, without it being somewhat 
painful.
  Think about it, think about the mom or dad who is just barely making 
ends meet. They are barely making ends meet before gas went over $3 a 
gallon. When is enough enough? Where is the outrage? Where is the 
legislation? Where is the oversight? Why aren't they calling the CEOs 
of the oil companies and asking is it possible that they are not in 
collusion, that they are not conspiring to set prices the same. It is 
mind boggling. I don't understand why they don't care. That is clearly 
the message that is sent here.
  What we would do, we would make sure that we could, within 10 years, 
be independent of foreign oil by pursuing alternative energy research 
like ethanol. Brazil has done it. This is our innovation agenda. For 
anyone on the other side of the aisle who wants to continue to 
perpetuate the myth that Democrats have no agenda, here is a big piece 
of it in several colors, not just black and white.
  This innovation agenda includes a number of things, not the least of 
which is our ability to truly end our addiction to foreign oil which 
the President talked about in his State of the Union, and only talked 
about and did nothing to change it. Our innovation agenda would help us 
get there. It would also make sure that we give people universal access 
to broadband in 5 years. It also does a number of other things to take 
us in a new direction.
  I know I have focused specifically in on one part of the problem, but 
because that is something that people deal with every single day or 
every couple of days when their gas light goes on and their tank runs 
empty, and I know you both agree with me that it is something that we 
need to put the magnifying glass on.

  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Knowing a lot of members on the other side of the 
aisle, I am not sure that they don't care, but clearly it is weak, 
passive leadership. We need strong leadership. We need not only a new 
direction, but strong, bold ideas that are going to take us forward. 
This whole idea, the whole political realm is about ideas.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle are dinosaurs. They are 
still working in the old oil days and those countries that are going to 
be on the cutting edge are going to be into these alternative energy 
sources. But you can't have weak, passive leadership that fails to step 
up to bat when the country needs them.

[[Page H4393]]

  One gentleman who was in my office said we need leadership. We need 
you to help us. We are losing control. We feel less and less like we 
are in control. And the things that the Democrats want to implement are 
to make sure that people have control of their own lives to the extent 
that they can, and that is education, that is being healthy, that is 
making sure that there is opportunity through these investments and 
research and development that we want to do. We want to make sure that 
these ideas are getting out there through strong, bold leadership that 
is going to move the country forward. I know Mr. Meek supports that. I 
have had conversations with him about that.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am trying to be as calm as 
possible.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are calm today.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Well, I am pleased because the Miami Heat has 
taken care of business in four games straight. There is going to be a 
great parade in Miami celebrating the Miami Heat's achievement of 
achieving the NBA championship, and that team consists of a lot of 
young guys and older guys that have really worked hard.
  I would just like to say this is the first time I have given the 
Dallas Mavericks any charitable words since I have been here on the 
floor and in this building, that they played hard. It was a great 
series and I appreciate the folks that are in Dallas, Texas, for their 
sportsmanship and the fans. But in Miami, we are very, very excited 
about it.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And that is not what he was saying last night about 
Dallas when we were watching the game.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Let me just say this, I am saying that this 
whole thing is about sportsmanship and be able to enjoy and have a good 
time. It is a great lesson for young people about mental mistakes that 
people can make.
  Life is like basketball, things happen and you have to adjust to 
those things. Folks were thinking I was going to talk for 30 minutes 
about the Miami Heat, but I don't want to waste the House time dealing 
with that, and they will be recognized later on. So we will move on.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I just wore the colors.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Ms. Wasserman Schultz wore the colors. I am not 
wearing the beads that I was wearing. We were down 0-2. I put the beads 
on and the Heat just went four games all the way.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I thought we were going to move on.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Let me say, Mr. Ryan, you were talking about 
leadership and Ms. Wasserman Schultz was talking about leadership. I 
think it is important when we look at leadership, that is not just in 
the White House. That is here in the U.S. House of Representatives, and 
it is very, very important that we have a body of Members here that 
have the will and the desire to lead.
  As you all were talking, I was pulling out a couple of examples to 
show you a lack of leadership. Remember the Wizard of Oz when they said 
let it be green and let it be red and let it be blue, and that is fine 
for a movie; but that is not fine for the United States of America as 
it relates to policy in any area.
  Let's start off at the top of the week when the White House said 
let's talk about the great things that are happening in Iraq or not 
happening in Iraq. It seems to be just the opposite at the end of the 
week of what is not happening in Iraq and what is happening in Iraq.
  But the bigger question is what is happening here in this House. We 
spent all kind of time running back and forth into last week, Members 
coming down to the floor making speeches, getting all puffy in the 
chest and talking and carrying on about who loves the troops and who 
doesn't love the troops.

                              {time}  1800

  No, I love them more than you do. I have a tattoo, you know, that 
said I love the troops.
  It is not all about how you say it. It's what you do. And the bottom 
line is, Mr. Speaker, nothing came out of the resolution that was 
passed. I mean, it is not like the resolution was passed and all of a 
sudden some great policy measure, some sort of major dollars going into 
veteran affairs or some direction to the Iraqi Government of how we 
really, where we really stand as it relates to it and relates to the 
war in Iraq. And I think it is important that, some of the things that 
I wrote down, Mr. Speaker is, following the Bush administration, and 
its rubber-stamp Congress has allowed the Bush administration to 
continue to carry out poor planning as it relates to the war in Iraq. 
Also, no plan for success. It is okay not to have a plan. Because we 
are in the majority, we are going to write a resolution that we are not 
going to even allow a Democrat to even put a period or a comma in, and 
because we are in the majority, we are going to endorse it, no 
oversight whatsoever from the U.S. House of Representatives. No 
oversight, Mr. Speaker. No accountability, no investigations of what is 
going on with the taxpayers' money that has been stolen in record 
numbers, no-bid contracts, $17 billion for Halliburton alone.
  The Democrats, what do we want? We want accountability. We want to 
make sure that 2006 is a significant year as it relates to transition 
and plan for Iraq. We want to make sure that the Iraqi people know that 
they are going to have to take responsibility for their government more 
sooner than later. And as long as we start saying we are going to stay 
as long as we are going to stay, they are going to keep saying it is 
going to take us as long as it is going to take us. It is in the U.S. 
taxpayers' pocket, and the American troops that are there will continue 
to pay the price with life, limb and blood and time away from their 
families as long as the Republican rubber-stamp Congress continues to 
rubber-stamp whatever the White House has said.
  Another point I wanted to make here. Some troops are on their fourth 
deployment. What does that mean if you are a soldier? That means you 
are going back for the fourth time. And it may be 12, 15 months. If you 
are a marine, many of the marines are definitely on their fourth 
deployment. A little shorter time, tougher duty, and it goes on and on 
and on.
  Recruiting standards have been loosened. The National Guard units 
have just 34 percent of the required equipment that they need once they 
go back into the theater. And that is something that we have to pay 
very close attention to.
  And the last point here as it relates to the no plan and the continue 
to throw the rock and hide your hand philosophy that this Republican 
Congress has is the fact that veterans' copayments are going up as it 
relates to prescription drug care. No plan for veterans when they come 
back with all of the issues that they are going to come back with to 
their families. We deserve to give them the attention that they need, 
and there is no plan for that.
  So to come and do the John Wayne, if I could use his name as a tough 
guy, and to say that, oh, we are going to do this, and using slogans 
about how we need to, people, anyone that talks about anything about 
Iraq outside of I am with the President, they are not really with the 
American people.
  Well, let me tell you something. I want a news flash to the members 
of the Republican side of the aisle. The American people are not 
feeling your rhetoric. And I think we will know in November about where 
we are because the American people are looking, Mr. Ryan and Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz, for some leadership.
  I think on the Republican side of the aisle, some folks need to go 
see the wizard, get some courage and some leadership, and to be able to 
say we are willing to work in a bipartisan way. I say this with great 
confidence because a lot of my Republican colleagues know it, and a lot 
of them tell me. You know, they say, Kendrick, you know, you 30-
somethings, you come kind of hard sometimes, but you know something, I 
can't get upset with you because it is true. Third-party validators 
know that it is true.
  I am sick and tired of seeing these parents get on the Today Show in 
the morning, Mr. Speaker, and trying to bring some sort of 
understanding in their own mind of why we are there without a plan, and 
why are we sacrificing our troops on the front line when it is now 
taking, going on 3, 4 years to train Iraqi troops, when we have had 
individuals that were in sophomores in high school that have been 
trained and

[[Page H4394]]

sent into theater and now on their second deployment. It is just kind 
of hard to explain that for Mr. Ryan and I that are on the Armed 
Services Committee. It is just hard to understand that, Ms. Wasserman 
Schultz.
  So this game of saying that we are going to stay as long as we have 
to stay, don't ask any questions, I think those days are over. I think 
the American discourse is going to take over what this House has not 
done, and I know that they are going to speak in a very positive way 
towards the party that has the plan.
  Now, we have plans and ideas on the table here in the House and in 
the Senate. But guess what? We are at least talking about a plan, Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz. We are just not saying, oh, excuse me. What did they 
say at the White House? Oh, they want to continue a war without a plan? 
Okay. That is fine. We will just rubber-stamp that. And what else can 
we do for the President? So shall it be written, so shall it be done, 
at the price of the American taxpayer and the price of some families as 
it relates to never seeing their father or mother again.
  So I think it is something that is very serious. I am making fun of 
the fact that there is a rubber-stamp Congress here, but I have to say, 
ladies and gentlemen, that it is a reality. It is a reality. No 
questions asked. Rubber stamp. And I hope that the American people pay 
very close attention to it.
  So I am glad that the Democratic Caucus has put their foot down and 
have said that enough is enough. You won't hear me talk about why can't 
we work in a bipartisan way, because we have been saying it since I 
have been here going on now 4 years, Mr. Speaker. So the will and the 
desire is not on the Republican side to even work with the Democrats. 
So now you have to move in the campaign that we have now and moving 
this country in a new direction, and that new direction is going to be 
inclusion. We are going to include Republicans in a bipartisan way, and 
moving this country and all the things that we talked about, Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz talked about, Mr. Ryan is talking about, and when 
folks can go on housedemocrats.gov and find our plan in moving this 
country in a new direction. We have the will and the desire, and we 
will definitely do it.
  With that I would like to yield to Mr. Ryan.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. You brought up the Republican lack of plan or 
planning or any agenda really. But I think we are living, as we said 
the last time we were here, we are living in the midst of an 
implemented neoconservative Republican agenda. Here it is. We are 
living in it right now.
  You want to know what the Republicans will do? Go to the gas pump. 
Look at your health care bills. Look at your college tuition. Just 
look. Look at Iraq. Look at Afghanistan. This is the neoconservative 
agenda as ordered. This is exactly what they wanted to do. They have 
the House, they have the Senate, they have the White House, and here it 
is. Look no more.

  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You know, you are just absolutely right, 
because what we are talking about is the direction that we would take 
this country in if we were given an opportunity, that we would expand 
access to health care and make sure the 46 million people who don't 
have it now, that far more, if not all of them, would have it; that we 
would truly invest in exploring alternative energy resources so that 
oil was not our only option; that we would make sure, and we committed.
  We had a town hall meeting with 30-somethings with Leader Pelosi and 
Ranking Member Miller, had a town hall meeting just the other day where 
we talked about that on the first day that we take the majority back in 
this House of Representatives and Leader Pelosi becomes Speaker Pelosi, 
we would halve the interest rate on federally subsidized loans, 
literally saving potential college kids thousands and thousands of 
dollars.
  But you know what? The attitude of the administration and the 
Republican leadership, Mr. Meek, you said you are sick and tired. I 
think people are sick and tired of being sick and tired. And I think 
that Americans have reached that point.
  And it never ceases to amaze me what their leaders, what the 
Republican leaders actually say. I mean, that they say out loud; never 
mind the thoughts they harbor, because you know we will obviously 
never, we can only guess what those are. But what they say is 
unbelievable.
  A few days ago we sadly marked the death, we were talking about the 
war in Iraq and how they have no plan; that this is an interminable war 
that has no end in sight, no plan, no ability to phase ourselves out. 
The other day we marked the death of the 2,500th soldier, American 
soldier. And White House spokesman Tony Snow said this about that 
milestone. He said, ``It is a number, and every time there is one of 
these 500 benchmarks, people want something.''
  Yeah. They want no more kids to die. They want no more of our 
American men and women to die needlessly without any possibility in the 
near future of knowing that they are coming home.
  A number? Sure. There are plenty of numbers that we could throw out 
there, the numbers that people care about beyond just 2,500 of our 
soldiers being lost. For example, 18,490 American troops were wounded 
in Iraq. And we have third-party validation for all of these. About 
40,000 Iraqis have been killed, beyond the American troops. $8.8 
billion. Here are some more numbers: $8.8 billion is the amount of 
Iraqi reconstruction funds the military has failed to account for, 
according to the Department of Defense's inspector general; 68 
journalists killed in Iraq; 2.2 million Active Duty soldiers and 
veterans at risk of identity theft. Actually that is more. Now with the 
theft of the computer it is 26.5 million; 382 days since Vice President 
Cheney claimed the insurgency was in its last throes. Ask the parents 
of the two American soldiers that were kidnapped and killed by 
insurgents the other day if they think that the insurgency is in its 
last throes; 1,140 days since President Bush declared mission 
accomplished in Iraq; 37 million people living in poverty in the United 
States; 13 million children living in poverty in the United States; 
$8,375,365,051,008.48. That is the amount of the deficit, yet tomorrow 
we are going to consider an estate tax that benefits 5,000 people; 45.8 
million Americans without health insurance, just to be exact; $16,000, 
which is the median debt of graduates of public colleges; $20,000 is 
the median debt of graduates of private colleges, yet after July 1, the 
interest rates for a college loan will be hiked up significantly, 
thanks to the Republicans' leadership here; $36 billion Exxon/Mobil's 
profits last year, more than any other corporation in history. Those 
are the numbers that the Republicans should find important.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, we spend so much time 
talking about the budget, and those are great numbers that you have 
shared here. And I see Ranking Member Spratt here on the floor, John 
Spratt, who has done such an outstanding job on the budget. And as you 
know, I always hold this chart up about the foreign-owned debt and 
where we are going and what is being spent.
  Mr. Ryan spoke to how we are paying more on the debt than we are 
paying on education, veteran affairs and a couple of other areas, too, 
homeland security. And I saw Mr. Spratt, and I just couldn't resist, 
sir. I know that you were here to put in a Record statement, but can 
you just share, just kind of bring into focus what has happened here 
and what will continue to happen, if the Republican Congress continue 
to have their way?
  Mr. SPRATT. There are lots of ways to present it, and you have got 
some ingenious devices there on the table. I found this back-of-the-
envelope summary of how much we have increased the debt ceiling of the 
United States, the legal limit to which this government can borrow, 
which is set by statute, over the years that George Bush has been 
President of the United States.
  When the Bush administration first came to the Congress back in 2001, 
with their proposal to do 1 trillion, 800 billion in tax cuts over a 
10-year period of time, they told us we could do these tax cuts and 
still we won't be back here to ask for an increase in the debt ceiling, 
the legal lending borrowing limit, until 2008.
  The next year, June 2002, hat in hand, they were back here at the 
Congress saying we missed it. We overestimated the surplus. The tax 
cuts have taken effect. We need a $450 billion increase

[[Page H4395]]

in the debt ceiling of the United States.

                              {time}  1815

  That was June of 2002. Within a year, May, 2003, they were back, and 
they were asking this time for a phenomenal sum of money, a $984 
billion increase in the debt ceiling of the United States.
  If you go back to 1981, just before I first came to Congress, when 
Mr. Reagan became President of the United States, the entire debt of 
the United States was less than $984 billion. In 1 year, they needed to 
raise the debt ceiling by that amount to accommodate the budgets of the 
Bush administration. Well, that was May of 2003.
  Fourteen months later, November 2004, there was another $800 billion 
increase. And when we passed the supplemental for the budget this year, 
the supplemental spending bill, there was slipped into it a provision 
increasing the debt ceiling by $781 billion. And still pending there is 
another increase. It is hard to believe. Back of the envelope sums it 
up better than any possible way I could. When they passed the budget 
resolution in the House this year, it included an additional increase 
of $653 billion. If you add all of those debt ceiling increases 
together, you will find that the total amount of debt ceiling increase 
in the Bush administration comes to $3.7 trillion. $3.7 trillion, that 
is how much we have had to raise the debt ceiling, the legal borrowing 
rate of this government, in order to make room for the deficits caused 
by the Bush administration's budget.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Spratt, I am so glad that you are here 
because here I hold a letter that former Secretary Snow wrote you about 
the emergency situation we are in of raising the debt ceiling.
  Again, Mr. Speaker, third-party validators. U.S. Secretary Snow, who 
is like the accountant, or used to be the accountant, of the United 
States of America, literally begging you, wrote you a letter and said, 
We have to raise this thing or I am going to have to shut down normal 
government operations.
  Mr. SPRATT. That letter was in February.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. That letter was in February. And then there is 
another one, Mr. Speaker, on March 6 that he wrote, again saying that 
we have to raise the debt ceiling.
  So we have the Bush administration appointees. I use these rubber 
stamps here, Mr. Spratt, as the rubber stamp Congress that we put here. 
So this wasn't a part of the letter, but we highlight here the begging, 
saying that they will not be able to pay into the G fund and other 
investments that they have to pay into to be able to assist. It is 
saying they are going to have to suspend investing in the Federal 
employees retirement fund.
  So, Mr. Spratt, I just wanted to bring that out, a third-party 
validator's saying that they have to raise the debt ceiling. But we 
spend a lot of time here, sir, as you know, in the 30-Something Working 
Group because we are working with the fact that young Americans and the 
future generations, what this is going to mean and what it is meaning 
right now to American families. And we also highlight the two 
amendments. This is almost like having the man that has made it happen 
here on our side of the aisle trying to move into a pay-as-you-go to 
stop exactly what you are pointing out there, sir.
  Mr. SPRATT. Exactly. That simple rule worked better than any budget 
resolution, any budget rule we enacted during the 1980s and during the 
1990s. I was here, involved in the process. I can stand witness to it. 
PAYGO worked.
  But don't take my word for it. Last year, while he was still chairman 
of the Fed, Alan Greenspan testified before our committee three times, 
and on each occasion we asked him, What is your assessment of the 
budget process rules we adopted in the 1990s and let expire in 2002? He 
said, I was a cynic then. I thought it was a diversionary tactic. But I 
have to acknowledge that those budget process rules had an enormous 
impact on the success we achieved, moving the budget from $290 billion 
in deficits when George Bush left office in 1992 to $236 billion in 
surplus in the year 2000. PAYGO, he said, works. And he recommended 
that it be renewed, extended in its old form, affecting both tax cuts 
and entitlement increases. That was Alan Greenspan saying it accounted 
for a lot of the success of the budget discipline we displayed in the 
1990s.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Spratt.
  I yield now to Ms. Corrine Brown of Florida.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, my question is for the 
congressman. I have a question. I was in my office and I got a notice 
across my desk that perhaps tomorrow we may be debating the estate tax 
for millionaires.
  And my question is that we can't get the minimum wage up that affects 
close to 7 million Americans that are working every day that can't make 
ends meet, but yet we are talking about an estate tax that is going to 
only affect about 6,700, the top 1 percent in the entire country. But 
my question is how are we going to pay for it? We are in a war that we 
are paying $450 billion for, and we are spending about $600 billion a 
month. So how are we going to pay for this?
  Mr. SPRATT. The bottom line is we charge the tab to our children. We 
have a deficit today. This fiscal year the deficit will probably be 
somewhere between 300 and $350 billion. If we adopt additional tax 
cuts, they will go straight to the bottom line and only make the 
deficit larger.
  Now, the tax cuts envisioned by this estate tax extension will come 
in the outer years because we are still increasing the exemptions and 
lowering the rate applicable to decedents' estates right now under old 
law. This will mean that in the first 10 years that this estate tax 
provision is fully implemented, the first 10 years when it is fully 
effective, the cost will be somewhere between 700 and $800 billion in 
revenues lost or foregone. Seven to $800 billion during that period of 
time. And that will be a period of time when the baby boomers will be 
beginning to retire in big numbers and starting to draw Social Security 
and Medicare, and we all know both of those programs are going to be 
strained under the load of the baby boomers' retirement.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Congressman, how long have you been 
here in Congress? Over what, 30 years? How long have you been a Member 
of Congress?
  Mr. SPRATT. I have been here for 23 years
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Twenty-three years. And in that time 
period I know you have seen always checks and balances, whether it is 
the House, the Senate, or the administration. The problem that we are 
experiencing now is that we have every branch of government controlled 
by Republicans, whether it is the House, the Senate, or the 
administration. And so therefore there is no restraint. That is why 77 
percent of the American people say that Congress is out of step with 
them.
  Mr. SPRATT. No question about it. That is one of the problems you 
have with the line item veto. It says we need to let the President get 
involved even more. I voted for an expedited rescission, a line item 
veto before, here on this House floor. But really I think that Congress 
itself should turn to its own problems and start addressing those as 
opposed to going outside the Congress for solutions. We know what the 
problem is. We do not have a budget resolution this year adopted by 
both Houses. One of the things we learned in the 1980s and again in the 
1990s was that you need a multi-year plan. Typically a 5-year plan. Not 
just a 1-year budget but a 5-year budget so you can see the 
implications on the tax side and on the spending side of what 
everything you are doing does to the bottom line. And we do not have a 
5-year budget at this point in time. And the budget process rules like 
the PAYGO rule and the discretionary spending caps that we adopted in 
the 1990s no longer apply. The law elapsed. The Republicans allowed it 
to elapse and did not renew it. And consequently we do not have those 
disciplines that we had in the 1980s and 1990s that finally brought the 
deficit to heal and, furthermore, in the year 2000, put it in surplus 
to the tune of $236 billion. The last full fiscal year of the Clinton 
administration, that is where it was, $236 billion in the black.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. I want to thank the leadership that we

[[Page H4396]]

have here that come and discuss these issues. And it seems that the 
major problem that we have in this country is that we do not have any 
checks or balances. The House, the Senate, and the administration are 
all controlled by Republicans. So if you don't have any checks and 
balances, we will have zero balance in the bank account.
  Mr. SPRATT. As a matter of fact, our Republican colleagues control 
the House. They have a majority in the Senate, and, of course, they 
control the White House. So they cannot escape responsibility for these 
fiscal results.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Thank you for giving me an opportunity 
to join you all this evening.
  Rubber Stamp Republicans: There is a very good reason why 77 percent 
of the American public does not believe that the United States Congress 
represents their interests. Instead of debating a fair minimum wage 
bill, tomorrow we will be debating the Repeal of the Estate Tax for 
millionaires!
  Instead of dealing with high gas prices, Republicans want to talk 
about gay marriage. Instead of providing the services that the veterans 
need when they return from Iraq, the Republicans want to talk about 
flag burning.
  Just last week, seven House Republicans joined Democrats in 
supporting an increase in the minimum wage, but yesterday, when the 
measure came up in the CJS appropriations bill, they suddenly changed 
their minds, joining the rest of the Republicans in ignoring the needs 
of seven million hard working minimum wage workers.
  So while ignoring the needs of hardworking low-income workers, House 
Republicans once again will vote to reward those who least need help!
  Just as they rewarded Halliburton, they continue to award big oil 
companies huge tax breaks at the expense of hard working Americans 
paying over $3 per gallon!
  The White House is collecting our phone records and tapping our 
phones, yet has no interest in investigating the abuse and fraud by 
Halliburton in Iraq.
  It is high time our country needs a change in direction! We need new 
energy policies, Iraq policy, higher education policy, health care 
policy, transportation, national security, and the list goes on and on 
and on! And this needs to be done in a fiscally sound way, not in a way 
that puts our children into more debt than they're piled in already.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you so much, Mr. Spratt and Ms. Brown. 
We are so glad to have you here with the 30-Something Working Group.
  Mr. SPRATT. Does that mean I get to join the 30-Something Working 
Group?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We will adopt you as a member.
  And we would like to remind the Members, Mr. Speaker, that all of the 
charts and documents that we have talked about tonight are on our Web 
site, housedemocrats.gov/30something.

                          ____________________