[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 89 (Tuesday, July 11, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H5030-H5036]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wilson of South Carolina). Under the
Speaker's announced policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Meek) is recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, once again it is an honor to come
to the House floor. We would like to thank the Democratic leadership
for allowing us to have this hour. The 30-something Working Group, as
you know, comes to the floor if not daily every other day when we have
the opportunity to do so, to share with the Members of the House
initiatives and plans that we have on the Democratic side of the aisle
that will make America better and stronger.
As you know, we have been on the message of a new direction for
America, and we have been working very hard on that because that is the
message that we have and that the American people are looking forward
to seeing implemented.
So many times here on this floor, we talk about ideas and concepts,
but they never really make it to the legislative debate, due to the
fact that here in the House, Democrats are in the minority; and the
majority has adopted a rule that there is not a true bipartisan spirit
here in this House, only when we vote on post offices and naming
bridges.
But when it comes down to policy, policy that is affecting the people
that we represent every day, there is a great divide, a divide to where
we are not sitting down at the negotiating table, in committee, in
subcommittee, and definitely not sitting down before legislation comes
to the floor in a conference committee to talk about what is best for
America and how can we make it better.
The American people yearn and hope for Democrats and Republicans and
the one Independent in this House to work together. I think it is
important to outline the fact that our leadership has said if given the
opportunity, earning the opportunity of the American people to lead,
that you will see a bipartisan spirit, not only spirit, you will see
bipartisan action in this House on major pieces of legislation dealing
with health care, education, how we are going to balance the budget,
just not talk on how to cut the deficit in half or we may cut the
deficit in half, really breaking down the deficit so that we will not
pay more than what we are spending and investing in education, homeland
security, and veteran affairs.
That is why we come to the floor. And we start talking about a new
direction for America, making sure that health care through
prescription drugs, and also making sure that HMOs eliminate wasteful
spending and a number of other reforms that should take place there so
that we do not have so many Americans going into emergency rooms.
Also lowering the price of gas and achieving energy independence is
one of our major goals. There was just a report that was released by
the Agriculture Department that is now having some sort of discussion
about ethanol and what we can use, how we can use the ethanol and how
it can play a role in making us independent, the E-85, and our proposal
of putting America on a new direction or in a new direction.
{time} 1830
We talk about the importance of alternative fuels, not just investing
in the Middle East and not investing in the Midwest. So we look forward
to continuing to push that philosophy here on this floor as we have the
opportunity to lead this House, knowing the American people can deliver
that, making sure that working families making more than what is
presently the minimum wage, increasing that minimum wage, making sure
they are able to bring home more to their families.
Millions of Americans are living on the minimum wage. It has been
very difficult. And we have charts here, Mr. Speaker, that would
illustrate how the minimum wage, we haven't seen a national minimum
wage hike since 1997,
[[Page H5031]]
but we have seen increases in other areas where families are still
expected to perform under those circumstances. And I think that is
where we are finding our shortfall as it relates to individuals being
able to afford college. Cutting the cost for college, making sure that
there is a tax deduction for college tuition and expanding the Pell
grants and cutting the student loan costs in half, making sure that
college is affordable, and rolling back the increases that Republican
Congress have put on students.
Not just students. When people talk about students, they think that
we are just talking about young people that graduate from high school.
We are talking about families that have invested their entire lives
with their children to make sure that they can go to school, that it is
affordable, that we don't continue to move the goal post the closer
families get to making sure that they can provide for their young
people to achieve a college education.
Also, preventing the privatization of Social Security, coming up with
real Social Security reform, and making sure that folks can retire in
dignity knowing that they have a Social Security plan and a Social
Security card that is more, that stands for the security of their
retirement.
Also, those individuals that are on disability, those individuals
that are receiving survivor benefits, making sure that they don't end
up in some line somewhere reporting to some private institution because
someone thought it was a great idea to make money for individuals on
Wall Street,
And, lastly, I would say a part of a new direction for America is
really being fiscally responsible. Now, the first Democratic hour out
here, Mr. Speaker, we had the Blue Dog Democrats that were here, and
they spent the entire hour talking about fiscal responsibility. And I
think it is important that the American people and the Republican
majority House understand that we have the will and the desire and the
track record to show that we truly know how to balance the budget,
surpluses as far as the eye can see when President Bush went into
office and a Republican majority was emboldened, and now we are
borrowing at a rate that one writer in the Washington Times, Mr.
Chapman, had said that the President has dethroned Lyndon Johnson as it
relates to spending. And that is a heavy statement to make, even though
I feel very strongly that President Johnson at that time of transition
invested truly in America and not just in billionaires and millionaires
receiving tax cuts, and also oil companies running away with public
dollar giveaways to them and record profits at the same time.
I am so honored tonight, Mr. Speaker, as usual, to be joined by my
colleague just north of my district and just west of my district and
east of my district in some areas, Ms. Debbie Wasserman Schultz from
Florida, and also Mr. Tim Ryan from Youngstown, Ohio.
As you know, last evening, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I was sharing with
the Members we don't just come to the floor, we actually meet to talk
about these issues that are facing Americans. And I think it is
important that we continue in that spirit and moving America in the
right direction, in a new direction than what they see right now from
the Republican majority.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And it is a privilege to join you and Mr. Ryan
and Mr. Delahunt each night that we take the House floor and talk about
the new direction that we as Democrats would take this country. Because
what most people have seen in America recently is essentially the
Republican leadership's efforts to engage in the politics of
distraction, because they have to distract the American people from
what is really going on here because the reality that is going on here
is too painful to closely examine.
I mean, they certainly can't hold up their wild success to the
American people for examination and celebration because they haven't
had any wild success. We are looking here at a record deficit, as you
discussed, Mr. Meek. We are looking at record gas prices. We are
looking at record numbers of Americans who are without health
insurance. We are looking at record increases in the cost of health
insurance, small business owners who are unable to continue to support
their employees and provide them with health insurance benefits. And we
are looking at a woeful inability on the part of the Republican
administration and this leadership of this House to protect the
homeland and focus on domestic homeland security.
That is why they instead have focused on things like the Pledge of
Allegiance and whether students are saying ``under God'' in school when
they recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and they are focusing on amending
the Constitution to prohibit flag burning or amending the Constitution
to ban gay marriage. Now, each of us might have our own individual
opinion on those matters, but when you go to Youngstown, Mr. Ryan, when
you go to Miami, and when I go home to Broward County, I just don't
hear, and I would bet you my last dollar that the vast majority of our
Republican colleagues don't hear one, two, three, four, or five on the
list any of those items. More likely, you have the father of four who
leaves his house in the morning not worried about whether his son is
going to be able to say ``under God: In the Pledge of Allegiance that
day, but whether or not he is going to be able to afford the $55 it is
going to cost him, at least, or around, to fill up his gas tank.
And how about the mom whose son or daughter is fighting on our
Nation's behalf in Iraq or Afghanistan? Do you think she is worried
about whether Congress is going to pass a constitutional amendment to
ban flag burning? Because that is certainly a notion of patriotism. Or
is she more likely praying every single day that her baby is going to
come home to her? I would say it is more likely the latter. And those
are the kinds of issues that people are addressing with us when we go
home.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Or at least have a discussion about how is this
going to end; how is this thing we have in the Middle East going to
end. We are not having that discussion. We are all patriotic; we all
support the country. We are Members of Congress. For God's sake, we
love America. That is easy. And if you want to say ``under God,'' say
it. Parents should tell their kids, just say it. Problem solved.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But could you imagine, they actually rolled
out an agenda that those items were at the top of the list. Because
what they have to do is they have to try to distract the American
people from their pitiful failure here, from their inability to get a
handle on the deficit, from their inability to do anything about
alternative energy exploration and reducing gas prices, about their
inability to expand health care to more people, and their inability to
develop any sort of plan to eventually get us out of this endless war
in Iraq, and their inability to deal with domestic homeland security,
border security, while protecting our American people here at home.
They are real focused on protecting everybody else in the world and
making sure that everybody else in the world's quality of life is in
good shape. What about the folks here? No, instead they just want to
spend a lot of time on the issues that are really none of their
business, that are really just decisions that families make inside
their own homes among family members.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I guess if we were on the other side, Mr. Speaker,
I guess the question we have to ask ourselves is, Why are they trying
to distract? What are they distracting us from? And I think when you
look at what is happening and why the Democrats want to take the
country into a new direction, all you have to do is look around. And I
know, Mr. Meek, and you know, Mr. Meek and Ms. Wasserman Schultz, there
are a lot of Republicans, when we start saying this stuff, they have
got to turn their TV off, they can't listen to it because I think it
rings true.
The bottom line is this, the neoconservative Republican agenda has
been implemented into the United States, period. And look around, here
is what it looks like: Iraq, Afghanistan, gas prices, health care
prices, tuition costs, minimum wage. Look around. Deficits, who are you
borrowing it from? That is the neoconservative agenda. It is here. And
we need to take the country in another direction. So they obviously
don't want to talk about it.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So as Mr. Meek was saying, what we would
[[Page H5032]]
do if we were in the majority, and hopefully the American people will
give us that opportunity in November, we would make sure right at the
get-go as Leader Pelosi, who will be Speaker Pelosi when we win back
the majority, as she talks about, one of the first things that we will
do the first week, raise the minimum wage. It hasn't happened since
1997, going on 9 years now. That is just pitiful. You have got people
in America, 7 million people in America making $5.15 an hour. That is
just an outrage. And we have got to make sure, that is the kind of
issue that people need the Congress to deal with.
I mean, in our home State we have had to address it inside the State
of Florida. Because the Federal minimum wage hasn't been raised in 9
years, we have got to make sure as we take the country in a new
direction, as Democrats would do, we would focus on fixing the
ridiculous prescription drug plan that they passed for Medicare
beneficiaries. We would make sure that the doughnut hole that provides
this humongous gap that senior citizens are falling through after they
reach I think about $2,500 in coverage for prescription drugs, they
fall through that doughnut hole, and they literally have to spend
several thousand dollars out of their own pocket before the part D
prescription drug benefit picks back up.
It also prohibits the Federal Government from negotiating with
pharmaceutical companies. We would make that change, and we would
require the Federal Government to negotiate with pharmaceutical
companies. Literally, the difference between prohibition and requiring
it, and just like they do in the VA right now, and save millions and
millions of dollars. I mean, who was this bill for?
If you want to make sure that there is a part D prescription drug
benefit that benefits senior citizens, then people will vote for us. If
they want to make sure that there is one that benefits the
pharmaceutical industry, then people will vote for them.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And just those few steps that we can take in the
first week that we are here, talk about taking the country in a new
direction. Imagine if we raised the minimum wage that first day,
imagine we cut the student loan interest rates in half saving students
and parents $4,000 or $5,000 over the life of the loan, the negotiation
by the Secretary of Health and Human Services with the pharmaceutical
companies, the money we would be able to save the government just in
those three steps. We are not talking about brain surgery here. We are
talking about basic fundamental commonsense moves that will benefit
everyone, commonsense moves for the common good. And I think moving the
country in a new direction is what we need to do.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And when people ask what the Democratic agenda
is, that is it right there. That is what we would do.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. That is it. We don't have some elaborate playbook
that is going to run left and fake this way and run this way. Three or
four different basic things, and you will see the difference between
having Democrats running the government and Republicans.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And Republicans can't get away with saying all
the things that we would do would cost money and build the deficit,
because we would reinstate the pay-as-you-go rule, the PAYGO rules, to
ensure that we don't spend more money than we take in, which is how
when President Clinton was in office we had a surplus and not a
deficit.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I would like to yield to Mr. Delahunt.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank my friend and chairman of the 30-something
Group for yielding. I apologize for being a bit tardy, but I had
business back in the office.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Something more important than us.
Mr. DELAHUNT. No, that is not the case.
But I heard you talk about Medicare, and it provoked a special
interest.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. A personal reaction?
Mr. DELAHUNT. A personal special interest, because I don't know if
you are aware of this, I am somewhat embarrassed to acknowledge this in
a venue such as this, but a week from today I will be on Medicare.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Wow. When is your birthday?
Mr. DELAHUNT. July 18 is my birthday, and I hit that magic figure
that entitles me to be eligible for Medicare. And if there is a single
program that has made a difference in the lives of senior citizens, I
was going to say elderly, but I think I will change that now, of senior
citizens in this country, it is the Medicare program. There has been
study after study which concludes that there is a connection between
longevity and the advent back in 1965 of Medicare and health that now
the older segment of the population enjoys. It is absolutely an
essential, critical program.
{time} 1845
Part of that, as Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz was saying, is the
fact that today, rather than referring people to hospitals, the
percentage of treatment that is given to senior citizens is through
prescribed pharmaceuticals. It has made clearly a world of difference.
And when we had this debate back in December of 2004, about the so-
called prescription drug benefit, Democrats argued that to prohibit the
Federal Government from negotiating with the large drug manufacturers
for discounts, substantial discounts, as you just indicated, as they do
now with the VA, was nothing but a windfall profit for large drug
companies. I don't know what the estimate is now, but you said
millions. Let me respectfully disagree with you and say tens of
billions, maybe in excess of 100 billion, but it is clearly a
substantial amount of money.
Just stop and think for 1 minute. That money would eliminate the
doughnut hole. And by the doughnut hole, we mean once the cost of a
particular prescription exceeds an amount, I think it is $2,600, for
the next $3,000-plus a senior citizen has to pay for that prescription
out of his or her own pocket.
We are already receiving calls, I do not know if your district
offices have had this experience, but the volume of calls from seniors
saying, you know, I didn't realize how quickly I would reach that so-
called doughnut hole, and I can't afford the next $3,000 to meet my
medical needs. And I need those drugs that take care of my cardiac
problem, for example, and I can't afford it, Mr. Congressman. What am I
going to do?
I know you are saying that we can address that, and we can address
that without adding to the deficit, but I think that is a commitment
that ought to be made to people who are on Medicare so that they can
enjoy a longer and more healthy life as they age, because they deserve
it.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Well, Mr. Delahunt, I think it is important to
take it away from the political debate here on this floor, between what
we believe that the American people want and need versus what the
special interests must have. The only way that people are going to win
on this floor is if we give them voice.
Last night, we got into a passionate discussion about the minimum
wage and why it was important. And we, I think, all agree that we give
those individuals voice that are punching in and out every day and
catching the early bus. We give voice to that mother that is trying to
figure out how she is going to get the kids to school and make it to
work making minimum wage, working more than half a day to even cover
the gas costs, let alone having to buy groceries and do all those other
things; and that father that catches the early bus and is trying to
make it happen.
So I think that as these fuel prices continue to go up, as it relates
to Medicare, there is this quiet inching up the storm of new
requirements and new loopholes for seniors to jump through in the hopes
they will not follow through or go through all those hoops, so that
they do not get what they deserve.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I don't know if any of you saw it, I think it was
yesterday in our major newspapers, I noticed that there was a story
relative to a report that indicated that much of the information that
seniors received relative to the prescription drug program was
erroneous and inaccurate. And we all know about the confusion at the
beginning of the program.
[[Page H5033]]
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Remember the error that was made by the
Department of Health and Human Services in the Medicare and You
handbook they sent out to all the Medicare beneficiaries? And when they
recognized the error in information about the prescription drug program
and advising people who were dual-eligible what kind and how
comprehensive their benefits were going to be and how much they were
going to have to pay for them, they refused to send out a correction.
The only way they were going to make the real answers available was via
the Internet or if people called and asked.
Now, how is that a commitment to clarity, to making sure people can
truly access the benefits that they are entitled to and that they do
not pay more than they are supposed to?
Mr. DELAHUNT. And what is happening now, as I said, senior citizens
were unaware of the fact that that limit would be reached so quickly,
which would put them into the doughnut hole, or I call it the
``abyss.''
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. The belly of a whale.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Right. Because that has happened so quickly that they
believed initially that it was only the moneys that they had to pay out
under the so-called copayment system. But, no, it was the total amount
of the cost of the drug between what they had to pay out of their
pocket and what the government was paying.
So all of a sudden, people who are spending $600, $700, $800 a month
on a drug regimen for, let us use the example of those who have a
cardiac problem, will find themselves, in 3 or 4 months, having already
reached that cap and now they are on their own. And that is happening
now.
Meanwhile, we cannot negotiate with drug manufacturers because the
Republican majority was protecting the pharmaceutical industry.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Delahunt, the American people want to be
leveled with, that is the bottom line. Mr. Ryan said it earlier. They
just want us to shoot straight. They want someone to be truthful with
them. In some parts of America they say, it is what it is; and if it is
about the numbers of what the private sector and what the special
interests can make off of every deal.
Yes, we all want a prescription drug plan, but at the same time we
want to be able to make sure we get the biggest bang for the buck. And
not for the special interests, but for the people that need the drugs
and the meds. Yes, we want to help oil companies be able to be
innovative and to find alternative fuels, but not on the backs of
Americans paying $3.25 a gallon. And, yes, we do want people to have
the opportunity to have quality health care, but not being gouged as it
relates to health insurance, watching out for the health insurance
companies first.
The Republican majority has done that, and then confusing people to
the point where they are misled, and so some of them just throw their
hands up and walk the other way.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz, you talked about the changes and the problems
and the mistakes within the literature that was given out. I was about
to say, this is the big leagues. This is the big leagues. We are the
Federal Government. The lights are on in this Chamber not because we
are great people, but because the people of America pay taxes so that
they will have a government that will stand up for them.
I have never seen a campaign sign saying I am running for Congress to
protect the special interests, vote for me. No one said to me,
Congressman, I want you to make sure ExxonMobil and companies like that
get what they need to make sure their shareholders are making the kind
of money they need to make. They sent me here to make sure they can get
from point A to point B and so that we would watch out for their
dollars when we got here.
I am telling you, I am very, very concerned, Mr. Delahunt, and beyond
partisanship, of what is happening to the majority as it relates to the
ongoing blocking on behalf of the special interests. You can see the
tracking as it relates to fund-raising, the K Street Project, a number
of other issues we know so much about: the scandals here in town as
relates to special interests getting what they want; Members being
pushed up to the back of the wall there in the corner, with leadership
saying, you will vote for this or you will vote against that; and the
voting board being held open for not only several minutes but hours in
some cases to make sure the special interests get their way.
Mr. Delahunt, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, and Mr. Ryan, it would be
wonderful to see the board held open so that the American people can
get a minimum wage increase that they haven't gotten since 1997.
Mr. George Miller stood right here and told the Speaker, it is a
shame that we are leaving here on the 4th of July break and we haven't
addressed the issue of millions of Americans still making $5 and some
change since 1997; meanwhile the cost of milk, bread, health insurance
and everything else has gone up.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Really, what it boils down to is exactly what
you are saying, it is that they are completely out of touch.
And I just want to pull up this illustration. We have our third-party
validators here that really help us demonstrate what we are talking
about on the floor each night, Mr. Speaker. It is not information we
are making up. It is not the Debbie Wasserman Schultz encyclopedia or
the Tim Ryan dictionary. These are facts we are laying out in front of
the American people so that they can decide whether they want to
continue down the path the Republican leadership has taken them on or
whether they want to go in a new direction.
It is clear that the Republicans have made these decisions because
they are out of touch. I mean, let us just look at the real economic
changes under this administration, under President Bush and the
Republican leadership, as opposed to the bogus one that they rolled out
today with their economic midyear review.
You can make numbers, as they have done, look as rosy as you would
like, but this is the real deal. Let us be clear, the Majority Leader,
Mr. Boehner, specifically said on June 20: ``I have been in this
business for 25 years, and I have never voted for an increase in the
minimum wage. I am opposed to it, and I think a vast majority of our
conference is opposed to it.'' And he said that on June 20 of 2006.
So let us take a walk down memory lane here. If you actually are in
touch with what everyday Americans are dealing with, then you will know
that, of course, since 1997, there has been no minimum wage increase.
But if you look at the price of milk, the price of milk has gone up 24
percent. And if you actually shop in the supermarket, like I do, then
you will know that the price of milk has steadily increased when you
are trying to buy a gallon of it.
How about the price of bread? That has gone up 25 percent. We are
talking about staples that people actually pay for with their minimum
wage increase, if they get one. Or don't get one.
Let us take a look at the cost of a 4-year public college education.
The cost of that has gone up 77 percent since 1997.
Look at the cost of health insurance. That has gone up 97 percent.
But no minimum wage increase in 9 years.
How about the price of regular gas? That has gone up, as every
working family knows, 136 percent. And while I am at it, I might as
well pull out my little toy prop here, because I think it is
illustrative.
I think part of the problem is, it is clear by that chart that most
Republicans obviously aren't dealing with these issues every day. They
are not buying their own bread. They couldn't be; otherwise they would
know that it has increased as much as it has. They are not buying their
own gallons of milk. Maybe they have their household staff buy these
things for them, or maybe they do it on the Internet. Or I am not sure
what is going on.
But when it comes to the price of a gallon of gas, this is an old-
fashioned gas tank, or gas pump. I have just concluded that it is
obvious that the Republicans have not done anything about gas prices,
Mr. Ryan, because most of them clearly have not used their own gas pump
to fill their own gas tanks since they looked like this. Because
otherwise they would be more committed to, instead of doing the bidding
of the oil industry by passing legislation that puts money, more and
more millions and billions in their pockets, they would make sure we
invested, truly invested in expanding our
[[Page H5034]]
alternative energy resources, so that we could reduce the cost of a
gallon of gas, and so that we could make sure that the Congress would
focus on the issues that people in America really care about.
{time} 1900
But it is clear to me that they haven't used one of these for a
really long time, and that is the reason they are so out of touch.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. It is the same old song, we don't need a minimum
wage increase. Things are going just fine. The President said the
economy is doing great and it is benefiting all Americans. Well, he
hasn't been to my district, and I am sure he has not been to a lot of
districts around the country where people are struggling.
I found it interesting, over the 4th of July break where we do a lot
of parades, and doing a parade is like taking a poll in your district
as to how people feel. They will shout at you exactly what they are
thinking. As you are going down and shaking hands and meeting people,
you hear about the gas prices and the lack of vision; you hear about
the trailers sitting in Hope, Arkansas. And you hear about the $9
billion being lost in Iraq. This is what average Americans are talking
about.
And then the kicker is when the Republican Congress pushes a pay
raise for themselves, but not a pay raise for the American people. Give
me a break. They raise the salary for Members of Congress, but at the
same time not at least tie it to minimum wage and say the American
people need to be a part of this, too? Come on. What is going on?
No matter what issue you are talking about, and this is the thread
that ties all of this together, the Republican majority is incapable of
executing government as stated by our friend, Newt Gingrich.
Mr. Speaker, he said, ``They are seen by the country as being in
charge of a government that can't function.'' He, the former Speaker of
the House, the father of the Republican revolution, is now calling the
leadership and the Republican Members of Congress ``they'' and also
saying that they are in charge of a government that can't function.
Whether you are talking about negotiating down the drug prices or the
$9 billion in Iraq, or FEMA, or any other issue, I think time and time
again they are seen as being incapable of being able to execute
government.
Mr. DELAHUNT. They don't believe in government. That is the truth.
Their version of government is simply the smaller the better.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Unless, of course, it involves their personal
life.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Exactly. Unless it involves involving the United States
in a quagmire.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Delahunt, I don't want you to get too far
away from ``they believe in smaller government.'' They believe in big
government. The government has grown larger than any other time in
recent history. Out-of-control discretionary spending, pork barrel
spending. An article I read last night, they said that the President
has dethroned President Johnson as it relates to spending. What they
say and what they do, that is the reason we are here on this floor. We
are saying ``they'' because that is what Newt Gingrich called them,
``they.''
Mr. DELAHUNT. I was going to make that point and you did it for me.
But let me say what we now see is big government, big government
promulgating and pursuing an agenda that is not a conservative agenda.
I think we should make that distinction. It is a neoconservative
direction because traditionally Republicans have been committed to
responsible government, pay as you go, live within your means.
And government is important, but there are areas where government
does not have a role. And yet here we are today with this President and
this Republican majority presiding over the largest expansion of
government in American history. And the expansion of government only
benefits a small segment of the American population.
That is what I would suggest is causing the anxiety and the negative
reaction that we hear when we march in those parades.
What about this Medicare drug program? It sounds good, but it is not
helping me. Who is it helping?
And how do you respond to a question: Why can't you negotiate with
the large drug companies and secure discounts like you do through the
Veterans Administration? Why can't you secure discounts of 40, 50, 60,
70 percent? Why can't you do that? Why can't Congress insist?
And the answer is because the Republican leadership will not allow
it. It simply won't allow it.
And, Congressman, we read about the oil companies, the energy
companies, Big Oil, if you will. We understand that in 2002 their
combined net profit was $35 billion; that's a lot of money. Now we see
new figures that it exceeds $113 billion. It has tripled in about 3
years. Congressman, can you explain to me why you and your colleagues
approve of giving taxpayer money to Big Oil in the amount of $14
billion? Can somebody help me answer that question?
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Because they care more about the special
interests than they do about the people they represent. It is as simple
as that. It is the only logical explanation.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Last night, and Mr. Speaker, I hate to keep
referring back to last night for the folks who did not see us here on
this floor, the Members who did not see us here on this floor last
night, we talked about the chart Ms. Wasserman Schultz broke out with
minimum wage at zero, and we talked about the White House meeting in
the complex, and I am not going to read The Washington Post article
again, but it happened in 2001, Mr. Delahunt. And these are the profits
that oil companies earned, record profits. In 2002 it paid off
immediately at $34 billion in new profits to oil companies. And in
2003, it went to $53 billion in new profits.
This is not something just coincidental. There was a strategy. They
wrote the energy bill. They came up with the plan and they had access
in the White House and here in this House of Representatives under the
K Street Project and got what they wanted. In 2004, $84 billion. In
2005, $113 billion.
Now these oil companies, as far as I am concerned, they are just
doing what they have access to do. I am more concerned with those of us
with voting cards, Members of Congress, those of us who have an A pass
over at the White House in the East Wing, that allow oil companies to
go in, say what they want and get it on the backs of the American
people.
Those profits don't just come out of the sky. They come out of the
pocketbook and wallets of everyday Americans. While they are reaching
into that credit card and while they are reaching in for that cash,
they are passing their voter registration card. It can have REP on it,
it can have DEM on it, it can have IND on it. Whatever the case may be,
the bottom line is it is the same amount of money coming out of those
wallets, not because of their doing, the American people's doing, but
because of the special interest influence over the Republican majority.
So that is what I am mainly concerned about here.
The last chart I want to share, oil companies, they are telling our
friends they are trying to head towards energy independence. They will
come to the Hill and say this is what we are doing with the money
you've given us, the taxpayers' dollars.
I will tell you what they are doing. I happen to be one of these
``Today Show'' watchers, and the CEO of ExxonMobil was on there, a
really nice guy with a deep voice and everything: ``I thought I would
come in.'' This was before Katie Couric left. ``I thought I would come
in and give our side of the story. We are for energy innovation. We are
for getting oil and gas prices down.''
This is what they are doing. This is E-85, what we call ethanol. This
is supposed to be the alternative to help us with our energy
independence. This is regular, special, and super plus. This is their
deal. This is the old-school way of doing things. This is the expensive
way of doing things. I am going to show you how this discourages you
from getting ethanol.
You can use a Mobil credit card to buy the three levels there where
we invest in the Middle East versus the Midwest. This is the Midwest
investment using corn and other resources to make it happen. But it
says here ``Cannot use your Mobil credit card,'' period.
Now you can walk in the store and you can buy a bag of chips, you can
[[Page H5035]]
even probably buy a carton of cigarettes with your Mobil credit card,
but you can't get E-85. The reason you can't get E-85 is because they
don't want you to get E-85.
So when the President is running around here talking about Americans
being addicted to oil, well, guess what, oil is addicted to the free-
fall access that they have here in this House of Representatives and in
the White House. They are getting their way. The American people are
not getting their way, and it is point-blank.
And I would like to break this thing down to where everyone can
understand. I don't need to tell you that I am on your side as a Member
of Congress on this side of the aisle. I think those who are paying
attention know whose side we are on. They know based on the record. It
seems like they are more interested in helping the special interests.
That is what the record reflects.
The record reflects that the special interests are getting exactly
what they want. It is the best time in special interest days. It is not
the best time in America; it is the best time for all of the big guys
that wear nice ties and ride around in big cars, being driven around
here in Washington, D.C. It is the heyday for them. It hasn't been
better for special interests.
There are record-breaking profits for the oil companies. It hasn't
been better in the history of drilling into the ground for oil. And
guess what, it is on the backs of the American people. I mean, they are
riding the backs of the American people, riding them down into the
ground until their faces hit the ground and they scratch their
forehead, on the backs of the American people, a la the Republican
majority, the rubber-stamp Congress and the White House.
When you say that, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, we just have to break it
down.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Let's break it down further, Mr. Meek. If that
was not enough evidence, let's take a look at a Congressional Research
Service report, which is an objective body which provides information
to the Congress, both parties, totally objective entity, provided a
memo to Senator Wyden last week, and that memo outlined the profits and
revenue return for the oil companies from 1999 to now. And it
demonstrated that the annual revenue return for eight oil companies
increased from 2.88 percent in 1999 to 7.1 percent in 2005 while the
return on shareholder equity went from 4.64 percent to almost 30
percent. Cash reserves for those same companies shot up from $9.5
million in 1999 to $57.8 million last year, and the capital investment
that they made went from $32.8 million to $68.8 million in the same
period.
The bottom line is that when they say they are investing their
revenue that they are generating into alternative oil exploration, it
is baloney. It is absolutely not true. What they are doing is they are
keeping their profits. They are holding onto their profits, and we are
giving them the money by forgiving them royalty payments for the land
that we are letting them drill for oil on.
So who is for the American people and who is just kidding?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. We had a debate right before the July 4 break.
{time} 1915
When I was a State trooper in Florida, we used to have these little
different details around the State of Florida. I was in Sebring,
Florida, which is Highlands County, and I was talking to this farmer,
and he said that ``Pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered.''
And I am going to tell you right now, the oil companies and the
access that they have to Members of Congress on the majority side to
give them what they want, they are getting it all right now.
Let's look at the oil leases. They want to drill off the coast of
Florida. Less than 1 percent, super less than 1 percent of 4,000 leases
that they already hold, that they are actually going and drilling in
those areas, but they wanted even more.
They wanted more, Mr. Delahunt. They wanted more because you know
something? They can get it. It is like a kid sitting down at the table
and they are eating ice cream and they have a tummy ache and they have
ice cream all around their face, and they say, give me another gallon.
And you give it to them.
And that is exactly what this Republican majority, this rubber-stamp
Congress has done, everything they have asked for, because they have
access through the K Street Project and other programs that allow them
to see through the doors of this Chamber and have Members vote ``yes''
for what they want and ``no'' for what they don't want. And what they
don't want is for the American people to be on a level keel to be able
to push back on this feeding frenzy of not only their tax dollars and
special interest giveaways, but to kill them at the pump.
I mean, I see people hesitate when they get out of their cars because
they are, like, I don't know if I have room on my credit card. I don't
know how much is it going to cost me today. The gas stations can't even
change the charts out front fast enough because gas prices are going
up.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Do you know what my husband and I noticed the
other day when we were filling up our tank? That the dimes, you know
how when we were little kids and the pennies are what scrolled really
fast when you were filling up your gas tank. Now it is the dimes that
scroll as fast as the pennies used to. I mean, that is how much things
have changed. So dimes, you know, 10 dimes, that is a dollar. Bye-bye,
every 10 dimes, another dollar gone.
And we have got to start moving energy policy, health care policy,
the deficit in a new direction, which is what we would do with our
innovation agenda. We would make sure that we commit to reaching energy
independence through our midwestern, as opposed to the middle eastern
dependence, through our ability to generate ethanol and invest in the
research that would help us truly utilize ethanol as an energy
resource.
Mr. DELAHUNT. If I could ask our chairman from Florida, just to raise
once more that chart.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. This one?
Mr. DELAHUNT. Right. You know what I find interesting is, you pointed
it out. It is the first time I have heard it, that you can't use that
particular credit card, a Mobil credit card, did you say?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Yes. It says you cannot use your Mobil credit
card, and then it has another sticker that says, not a Mobil product.
But at the same time, neither are the potato chips, neither are the
cigarettes, neither is a six-pack of beer.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Right. But it is at a Mobil station?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. That's correct, yes, sir.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Okay. But it is not a Mobil product. And you interpret
it, as I did, as a way to discourage people from using a fuel source
that, over time, could wean us from that mideastern oil and allow us to
rely, again, once more on that farmer, that American farmer from the
Midwest?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Yes, sir.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Okay. That is what we are talking about. That is really
what we are talking about.
But you know what I find interesting? You raised it here in our
conversation this evening. But has anybody, any chairman, if you are
aware of any committee, standing committee of this House with this
majority, requested or invited or insisted that the chairman of
ExxonMobil come before it to explain to us and to the American people
why does that product have that sticker about it when it is at a Mobil
station? Just a simple question to educate us.
And it is clear that if it is a question that is not being asked by
the majority, then nothing will change. And I would suggest it is the
responsibility of this Congress and its committees to ask those
questions because the American people deserve answers. And we are
abrogating, we are not meeting our responsibility of oversight when
those questions are not posed; and they are not being asked in this
House of Representatives at this moment in our history, and it is a
disgrace.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Look, the retirement package, Lee Raymond, CEO of
Exxon, $398 million retirement package. He gets a $2 million tax break.
So it is bad enough you are already subsidizing his business to the
tune of $14 or $15 billion.
[[Page H5036]]
And this is the kind of disparity, we have the highest disparity
between the wealthiest people in the country and the poorest people in
the country since the 1920s, that is going like this. And the whole
idea is to try to lift all the boats up into the middle class.
And we were talking earlier about the economy. This is, again, third-
party validator, as we begin to wrap up. The long term, because we get
a lot of happy talk, but the long-term outlook is such a deep well of
sorrow that I can't get much happiness out of this year. That's a
former director of the Congressional Budget Office that used to work
for President Bush. It is such a deep well of sorrow.
This country is going in the wrong direction, whether you are talking
about oil or Medicare or the war or Katrina or whatever, and my friend
has got his toy there. This country is going in the wrong direction and
we want to go in another direction.
If you like the neoconservative agenda that has been implemented,
look around, gas, oil, retirements, pensions, minimum wage, Social
Security, college tuition, keep the Republicans in office.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, just very quickly, the bottom line is,
Mr. Delahunt, to your point, sir, the reason why the chairman hasn't
called ExxonMobil in, the reason why everything that we have described
here today is that we are on the total opposite side of their position.
We are not willing to rubber stamp everything that the President and
the administration says must happen in this Congress. We are not
willing to rubber stamp the special interests just because they are
contributors to a particular campaign or something.
We are willing to stand up for the American people. And the reason
why we have this rubber stamp down here on the floor, just to
illustrate exactly what the Republican Congress has done, and that is
the reason why we are in the situation we are in now.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I just think, at the end of the day, we need
to stress that in November, when we have the opportunity to take the
majority of this institution, we will move the country in a new
direction.
We will make sure that we make a commitment to reducing the deficit
and reduce it. We will expand access to health care. We will actually
invest in alternative energy resources so that we can truly reduce gas
prices. And we will make sure that the American people know that their
Representatives are here for them and not for the special interests.
Mr. Ryan.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And even in the first couple of days, we will raise
the minimum wage and cut college loan interest rates in half for
parents and students. Just in the first couple of days, once we get
this signed into law, we will recognize a huge difference.
Www.housedemocrats.gov/30something. All of the charts that we have here
can be accessed on the Web site. Www.housedemocrats.gov/30something.
It has been a real pleasure.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, you did such an excellent job with the
Web site.
I want to thank Mr. Delahunt for coming down and joining us this
evening. We know that he could not join us yesterday evening.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz, always a pleasure working with you here on the
floor and off the floor.
What is good for the American people; and with that, Mr. Speaker, we
thank the Democratic leadership.
____________________