[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 90 (Wednesday, July 12, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H5112-H5118]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 1800
30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McCaul of Texas). Under the Speaker's
announced policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan)
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the opportunity again
for the 30-something Working Group to be down here to talk about issues
that are pressing not only to the country but to those people who are
in their 20 somethings or 30 somethings and how some of the policies
here in Washington, D.C., are playing out in their day-to-day lives.
The previous speakers talked a lot about making sure that we secure
our border, and the Democratic Party has been very supportive of trying
to fund Border Patrol and take different measures that we are going to
make sure that we did actually secure the border. I think all Americans
can agree that if we do not secure the border, any policy that we try
to deal with afterwards will not be effective until we actually do
secure the border.
I would like to go through a list here of different amendments that
Democrats have tried and tried and tried to get passed since 2001 that
the Republican majority has voted against. Now, this is not a partisan
issue. You would think it is an issue all Americans should be concerned
about, but sometimes when you get one-party control of the House and
the Senate and the White House, you get obstruction and this is what
happened. These are all dated and these can all be found on our Web
site.
In 2001, vote 454, November 28, Republicans voted against
consideration of an amendment that would have added $223 million for
border security. In 2003, another one, Republicans voted against
consideration of an amendment that would have added $300 million for
border security. 2003, vote 305, Republicans once again voted against
consideration of an amendment that would have added $300 million to
enhance border security, adding border agents and inspectors along our
border. June 16, 2004, vote 243, Republicans voted against
[[Page H5113]]
consideration of an amendment that would have added $250 million, Mr.
Speaker, in order to meet the promises that the Republican majority
made regarding the PATRIOT Act. Again in 2005, vote 160, Republicans
again voted against a motion to send a report back to conference with
instructions to add $284 million. And for fiscal year 2006 and 2007,
Republicans have repeatedly broken the promises they made on border
security in the intelligence reform bill, the 9/11 Act of 2004, which
included 2,000 additional border patrol agents, 800 additional
immigration agents and 8,000 additional detention beds per year from
fiscal year 2006 to 2010.
Democrats have consistently tried to increase border security, and
the Republican majority has consistently voted against it. I am not
done. Again, 2005, vote 174, Republicans voted against consideration of
an amendment that would have added $400 million for border security to
meet the promises that Congress made for the 9/11 Act, again increased
immigration agents, increased border patrol agents.
2005, vote 187, Republicans voted against a Democratic substitute to
the homeland security authorization bill that was designed to fulfill
the promises again in the 9/11 Act, and it goes on and on, again vote
188, in 2005; vote 56 in 2006; vote 210 in 2006 in May, where the
Republicans finally voted against consideration of an amendment that
would have added $2.1 billion for border security.
We have tried and tried and tried to put the proper legislation and
the proper funding in place, Mr. Speaker, to secure our border, and
that needs to be the message. Before we get on to any other discussion
regarding immigration in the United States of America, if we do not
secure that border then nothing will matter, and that is exactly what
we have been trying to do.
I think, Mr. Speaker, when you look around the world, and it hit me
as I was reading the Sunday Times from this past Sunday, why it is so
important for the United States to maintain a strong position in the
world, promoting peace and democracy and liberty and freedom and
capitalism, all of the basic tenets of our society, all the basic
structures of our society. If America does not do it, it will not
happen, and it will not happen.
All you have to do, if you do not believe me, we like the third party
validators here, look what is happening in Russia. We hear a lot about
what is happening in China, crackdown, dissent, human rights abuses. We
hear a lot about what is going on, currency manipulation, suppression
of religious freedom, but look what is going on in, quite frankly,
state-run enterprises that are putting American businesses into
bankruptcy.
We also see what is happening in Russia. Russia offered to help North
Korea protect their nuclear weapons with technology, and then this is a
special report in the paper, the Kremlin tightens reins on free market,
where President Putin is having a Cabinet meeting and those major
members of the Cabinet are also running major enterprises in the state.
It is imperative for the United States of America to maintain this
position of strength, and it is nice to see that I have been joined
here by my friends from Florida and from Boston and our other friends
who made it here, too, to have this discussion about why it is so
important for America to maintain this position. The Democrats have
consistently tried to take this country into a new direction, into
another direction and get ourselves out of this wageless recovery and
this endless occupation that we are in.
I would be happy to yield to my good friend from Massachusetts.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Ryan for yielding the time.
As I was waiting to come over, I had an opportunity to watch our
friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle speak about
immigration, and I discovered something tonight, and that is that they
really have a great sense of humor.
Now, we know individual Members over there that are friends of ours,
we enjoy them, and they have a sense of humor, but collectively they
have a sense of humor. They were eloquent in their comments and their
observations, and I noted that they continued to refer to the Senate
bill, Mr. Speaker, as the Reid-Kennedy bill. Well, I guess we must be
playing some sort of funny game because I am going to ask my colleagues
to help me.
Whatever happened to John McCain? Did he just disappear? I thought it
was Senator McCain, who there is a rumor, Mr. Speaker, that he might be
a candidate for the Republican nomination for President, that he had
something to do with that Senate bill. Has anybody seen Senator McCain?
Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz, have you seen Senator McCain?
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I am going to have to get out the
bloodhound.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Congressman Ryan, have you seen Senator McCain? It used
to be the McCain bill, and now it is the Reid-Kennedy bill. I mean, who
is kidding who?
Now, you have a Senator, I believe, from Florida by the name of
Martinez, Senator Martinez. I thought that he was involved in the
amended version of the Senate bill that eventually passed. Am I
correct?
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. My understanding, Mr. Delahunt, is it was
Senator Hagel, Senator Martinez, Senator McCain. So how this became the
Reid-Kennedy bill----
Mr. DELAHUNT. Do you think it has anything to do with politics?
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. No.
Mr. DELAHUNT. You are all silent. I mean, can you help me, please? I
am just confused, Mr. Speaker. Whatever happened to John McCain? Does
he still support this bill, this possible candidate for the Republican
nomination for the presidency in 2008? Whatever happened to Senator
McCain?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, well, let me just say that it is an
honor being here tonight with my colleagues and 30-something Working
Group, and I am so glad that Mr. Ryan was here to catch the hour. I
notice that he has taken the high road here or the high ground here
tonight, and it is so good to be in the well.
But I just want to say to Mr. Delahunt, it goes back to our
discussion the last two evenings. Our Republican colleagues on the
Republican side of the aisle, which is the majority, what is not a
great value of that majority and the leadership is being straight with
the American people.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, yeah.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. So this is a consistent theme of not being
straight with the American people. They take value in not being
straight with the American people, need it be deficit spending, record
breaking borrowing. I read an article just last night or the night
before as it relates to the President saying that we have to send a
message to Congress that we want control on spending and their appetite
on spending the taxpayers' dollars, to let the American people know
that we are fiscally responsible. Then the next day signing the largest
pork barrel bill, transportation bill in the history of the republic.
Being straight with the American people. Not a week later, but the next
day.
Telling us here on this floor that a prescription drug program costs
one thing, find out a week or two later that it has doubled in costs,
and then months later, several hundred million dollars more.
So when we start looking at being straight with the American people,
and I think that is the frustration of Republicans and Democrats and
Independents, and voters, period, out there is the fact that the
Republican majority has decided that being straight with the American
people and leveling with them is not a value. Oil prices, price
gouging, protecting special interests, K Street Project, a number of
other issues that are here on this floor with the special interests
takes the high ground, and they are protected and the American people
are not.
When we talk about the minimum wage, Mr. Ryan has the charts over
there, 1997, there has not been an increase in the minimum wage since
1997, and on that chart we have the Republican leadership saying not
over my dead body is this going to happen, in so many words, that we
are not going to allow it to happen.
Here on this chart you have the minimum wage down here. Mr. Delahunt
is familiar with this. 1997, you know, starting with the oil, starting
with the minimum wage here, zero. Here in 2006, it has been that way
since 1997. Whole milk has gone up 24 percent; 25 percent,
[[Page H5114]]
bread has gone up; 4-year public college has gone up 77 percent; health
insurance has gone up 97 percent; and regular gas has gone up 136
percent and still climbing.
We have folks here that are saying, hey, give us a pay raise. I am
going to tell you right now, if someone has to keep two homes and
travel between and do all of those things, yeah, I would like a pay
raise, but at the same time I have a conscience about this.
Our leadership has said, and we have said that we are not going to
take a pay raise unless the American people get a pay raise.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I interrupt only because I want
you to read the quote from the Republican majority leader about where
he is and his conference is on the minimum wage increase.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Well, he is a good friend of mine, but I am just
going to read this because I think it is important. I guess this is the
position here: 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 that a vast majority of our conference is opposed to it.
That was just June 20 of 2006.
I mean, obviously this is the philosophy that has been picked up all
the way from the former Member of this House who was the majority
leader because it has not been increased federally since that time.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I have to get back to the point that you
made when I yielded to you about the missing John McCain. Since tonight
listening to their remarks about immigration, somehow they want to put
it on the Democrats that the problem is and was created by Democrats.
{time} 1815
Well, nothing could be further from the truth. I mean, if you want to
give this Senate bill a label, the truth is, it is supported by
President Bush. Now, can you help me? Is President Bush a Republican,
Mr. Meek, or is he a Democrat?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I think the President and some members of his
party are struggling to know what his party affiliation is. Because I
know some Republicans that are very concerned about what the President
has done and what he is doing. But he says he is a Republican under the
line that he is a fiscal conservative, but that is not the case.
So we do not know what to believe. Ideological wise, he is a
Republican President, but at the same time some of the stuff we hear
here on the floor would say that it is some other kind of party or
philosophy that is out there.
But to the answer your question, yes, he is a Republican President.
Mr. DELAHUNT. So he is a Republican. So why do not we refer to it
then as the Bush-McCain bill that is distinct from the other bill?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I personally, I am representing the 17th
Congressional District of Florida, you know Dade and Broward County.
But, you know, I do not want to be them, Mr. Delahunt. I do not want to
come to this floor and start talking about what they are saying, so we
are going to rebut what they are saying. I do not want to be them. I
want to make sure that we are who we are.
We are being straight with the American people. If it is the Bush-
McCain or it is the Kennedy-Martinez bill II, Arlen Specter bill II, so
that if someone sees us here on the floor and they heard, well, they
call it the Bush-McCain bill, they say, well, they left the Democrats
out, and then we have just done what they have done. I know how that
can be contagious sometimes because it happens so much here on this
floor.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I am not going to refer to it again as the Bush-McCain
bill.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I know you are just making a point, sir.
Mr. Delahunt, I am so glad that you were witnessing that. I was in
the oversight committee and I could not see it.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I know that we worked hard. And I will yield to the
gentlewoman in a moment. That we have worked hard to secure the
borders. That is what we have been trying to do for the past 6 years.
I am going to refer to my notes here for a minute.
We, as a party, have filed amendment after amendment as
appropriations bills have come to the floor. If they had been adopted,
there would be 6,600 more Border Patrol agents today patrolling our
border, 14,000 more detention beds, and, Mr. Speaker, 2,700 more
immigration agents along our borders than now exist. But those
amendments were not adopted because the Republican majority voted
against them. That is why. That is why we have the problem today that
is causing this contentious atmosphere in this Chamber and in the other
Chamber.
But let's speak to the truth. Let's not just simply politicize this
debate. Let's put the facts out. Who has been in charge of this
institution for the past 12 years? It is the majority Republican party,
Mr. Speaker. And across this Capitol building, who has been in charge,
Mr. Speaker? It is the Republican Party, and George Bush has been the
President of the United States since January of 2001.
Today we have a problem with illegal immigration. Who is responsible?
MS. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Delahunt, let's play a game. Let's see
which caucus is really for border security and which conference is
playing ``let's pretend.'' And we will deal just with facts here, just
with factual information, unlike what they do, which is either, A, make
it up as they go along; or, B, say something that is not true enough
times so that people believe it; or, C, just pick and choose the
numbers that work best for them and represent that they are doing
something when they are really not. So any of those three things is
what happens on the other side.
Here is the reality on border security, Democrats versus Republicans:
From 1993 to 2000, under the Clinton administration, on average, 642
new Border Patrol agents were added every year. Despite the fact that
9/11 highlighted the need for more border security, in its first 5
years the Bush administration added, on average, only 411 new Border
Patrol agents.
Under the Clinton administration, 642 new Border Patrol agents were
added every year. Under this administration, since 2001, since 9/11,
only 411.
It gets better. Between 1999 and 2004, we are talking about
enforcement, you know what, the Republicans talk a good game about it,
we have got to increase enforcement, we have got to make sure that we
crack down on illegal immigration, we have got to make sure that
employers are not harboring illegal immigrants and breaking the law in
hiring them. Well, let's see if they really mean that.
Between 1999 and 2004, work site immigration enforcement operations
against companies were scaled back 99 percent by INS. Subsequently, INS
was merged into the Department of Homeland Security and now it is
called CIS. But in 1999, the United States, this is the year before
President Bush took office, the United States of America initiated
fines for hiring illegal immigrants against 417 companies. Mr.
Delahunt, in 2004, it issued fine notices to three companies. Three.
1999, the year before President Bush took office, the United States
initiated fines against 417 companies for hiring illegal immigrants. In
2004 they initiated three.
Mr. DELAHUNT. So in the space of some 5 years, enforcement actions
against employers who were hiring illegal immigrants----
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I have another one. The Bush administration
also has a worse record than the Clinton administration on pursuing
immigration fraud cases. In 1995, during the Clinton administration,
6,455 immigration fraud cases were completed. In 2003, guess how many?
One thousand three hundred eighty-nine, 78 percent fewer immigration
fraud cases completed.
And then if you take the statistics that they brag about, the Bush
administration brags that in its first 5 years it caught and returned 6
million undocumented individuals. That is actually a drop from any 5-
year period that you can demonstrate during the Clinton administration.
So that is what I mean when I say they just put up the statistics
that make them look good and leave out all the other relevant
information.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, number one, we need Mr. Manatos and
others to get us a chart on that.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We have got to have a chart.
[[Page H5115]]
Mr. MEEK of Florida. We have got to have a chart. Because, folks,
they cannot quite capture those numbers on that small piece of paper
you have. If a Member was in his office or her office watching us here
on the floor, we want them to visually see their track record on what
they have done.
It reminds me of when the President flew over the Hurricane Katrina-
affected area and came back to the White House and said, We are sending
food and water down, and blankets, and this is just the beginning.
Well, that was 3 days after the storm. And I can tell you this right
now, in the heat of the summer, I do not know what good blankets would
have done, but that is a whole other issue.
The bottom line is, just because they say it, and I am taking from
Gingrich, just because they say it, ``they'' is what Mr. Gingrich is
calling the Republican majority, just because they say it does not
necessarily mean that it is true. It does not necessarily mean, just
because they say it, that it is true.
I will share what Mr. Gingrich has called this Republican majority.
We do not have to do it; Republicans and Americans are saying it. This
is the former Speaker of the House, Mr. Speaker, who said in the Knight
Ridder newspaper, Friday, March 31, 2006, ``They,'' talking about the
Republican majority, ``are seen by the country as being in charge of a
government that cannot function.''
And this is what we are seeing, Mr. Delahunt. Folks coming to the
floor seeing things that they know are altered. They are altering it.
They are saying, well, this is the written word and these are the
facts. But that is not good enough for me; I am going to erase it, and
I am going to go to the floor and I am going to fool the American
people. I am going to mislead the American people, because it is an
everyday occurrence here by this majority.
And the reason why so many Democrats, and I would say a very few
Republicans are outraged by the fact, when they hear the facts, when we
all sit in our offices and we hear altered information; we have third-
party validators. If we say the U.S. Department of Treasury came up
with these numbers, they came up with the numbers. If we say that the
deficit is record-breaking borrowing in the history of the Republic, we
have third-party validators.
Some Members come to the floor, and it is their prerogative, and if
they want to mislead, let them mislead. But we are going to make sure
that we continue here in the 30-Something Working Group and on this
side of the aisle, in sharing the truth with the American people. This
is not a place where someone comes up and says, this is a Democratic
Party meeting or this is a Republican Party meeting or this is a Reform
Party meeting, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, this is the U.S. House of
Representatives, the People's House the only Chamber that you have to
be elected to.
You can be appointed as Senator by a governor. But you have to be
elected to the House. There are no appointments here. So I think it is
important that folks really appreciate what we are doing here.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I want to thank you for bringing those
numbers, and I want to make sure that we get it into a chart.
Let me just say this real quick. I have got this chart here, just as
an example of who we are as it relates to sharing information that is
accurate, versus some on the majority side that are well documented for
not sharing accurate information to not only the Members of Congress
and the minority side and some of their own Members, but also the
American people.
Case in point: $1.05 trillion that President Bush and the Republican
Congress that you see here, borrowed from foreign nations, foreign
nations, between 2001 and 2005. $1.05 trillion have dethroned--that is
the new word--42 Presidents before this President; 224 years of the
history of this country, they have only been able to borrow $1.01
trillion.
Now, Mr. Delahunt, this is my point. This is from the U.S. Department
of Treasury, it is right here. Folks can go on the Web Site and get it.
Now, if we were meeting in the 30-Something Working Group and say,
well, $1.05, well, maybe we need to, even though it happened all in 4
years and it took 224 years for this to happen, let's say $1.09, that
sounds better. That would be misleading the American people and the
Congress.
Members are on the floor, and they take what we say to be truth to
power, that we come and we are here leveling on behalf of the American
people. We are not here to say what sounds good or what would sway a
certain segment of the population to feel one way or another.
Folks woke up early one Tuesday morning from representation, not for
someone to mislead them through statements here on this floor that are
not accurate. That is the reason why we are in the situation that we
are in now. Even when it comes down to the war in Iraq. Even when it
comes down to the pursuit of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.
The information is not accurate that has been shared with the
American people and that is the reason why so many individuals are
suffering as it relates to gas prices. These gas companies and these
petroleum companies have been allowed to come into this Chamber with
Members carrying their will and voting the way that they want them to
vote against their constituents.
This is something that we all feel passionate about and the American
people feel passionate about. And, Mr. Ryan, as I yield to you, as they
go to the pump and hesitate before they put their debit card or credit
card or whatever it may be into that pump about, how much is it going
to cost me today to fill my tank up, they need to think about the
individuals that are allowing these petroleum companies to take
advantage of the American people, misleading the American people. And
if I had my way and we were in the majority, I tell you, I guarantee
you, that that practice would no longer take place. And when it does
take place, we will come to the floor and knock it down.
I commend Mr. Delahunt for bringing the misleading of the American
people as it relates to information on who is sponsoring immigration
bills in the Senate, and pointing out the fact that there would not be
an immigration bill that passed out of the Senate if it was not for the
Republican majority voting in the affirmative for the legislation, the
same way as here in the House.
{time} 1830
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. The same thing with the deficit. With the fourth
largest annual deficit in the history of the United States of America,
the President makes his way out, Madam Speaker, and touts it like it is
some great success, like we should all be pounding our chests and proud
of this. The fourth largest deficit in the history of the country. And
we are borrowing the money from Japan and China and OPEC countries and
all these other countries that give them real leverage on us when we
try to act in a diplomatic way, whether it is with North Korea or
Russia or China or whatever it may be.
What would the Democrats do and what have the Democrats attempted to
do time and time again? The Democrats have tried to reestablish the
PAYGO rule, and we have tried to do it numerous times in the past
several years.
Now, what is PAYGO? PAYGO basically says that we will not spend any
money in Congress unless we can pay for it. We are not going to go out
and borrow the money. We have got to pay for it. Here it is, and there
have been numerous--this is just a couple: The Spratt substitute for
the budget resolution in 2006 failed, not one Republican voted for it,
rollcall vote number 87.
We are not making this up. We tried to put PAYGO rules into the
budget process and the Republican Congress voted against it, because
that would limit their ability to provide corporate welfare to the oil
industry, to subsidize tremendously the health care industry. Again,
Congressman Spratt, vote rollcall number 91, failed again for the
budget resolution in 2005, 194 to 232. How many Republican votes? Zero.
And I know Dennis Moore has tried to do it, Charlie Stenholm, when he
was in Congress, he tried to do it. Time and time and time again, Ms.
Wasserman Schultz, Democrats have tried to implement basic structural
[[Page H5116]]
changes so that we could balance the budget.
It is not a coincidence that when President Clinton was in and the
Democrats passed the budget in 1993 and we began to implement some of
these rules, we had a tremendous explosion of economic expansion that
lifted everyone up; and then, in 1997, passed an increase in the
Federal minimum wage which, actually--there is a statistic here that I
just love from American Progress, 4 years after the last increase in
the minimum wage, the economy enjoyed its strongest growth in over 3
decades, adding 11 million new jobs. And, the small business employment
between 1997 and 2003 grew more in States that had a higher minimum
wage than the Federal minimum wage.
Raising the minimum wage is good for the economy. It is a different
philosophy, it is different, but it works.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That makes me want to pull out another third-
party validator, because this week we got to experience the exciting
midyear opportunity to hear the President with his Republican
leadership surrounding him to cheerlead the supposed success they have
on the economy.
Now, it would be one thing if we were standing up here as Debbie
Wasserman Schultz and Tim Ryan and Kendrick Meek and Bill Delahunt and
saying, well, that is a lot of baloney. Anyone in America looking at
this economy and looking at this deficit would say, what is there to
celebrate about?
But it is not just us. This morning editorial page in USA Today had
this to say about the midyear review of the economy that the
administration just trotted out.
They say, ``Forgive us if we don't break out the party hats. It is
hard to get excited about an abysmally large deficit in the range of
$300 billion that is somewhat less gargantuan than earlier predicted.
Even accepting the administration's assurances that it does not
purposefully overestimate the numbers in a Wall Street-like game of
beating expectations, this habitual midyear crowing masks the
seriousness of the Nation's bleak fiscal outlook.''
Well, if that doesn't say it, all right there in a nutshell, I don't
know what does.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. There was a gentleman at work who worked for
President Bush, Douglas Eakin. Holtz-Eakin, former director of CBO for
President Bush said, ``The long-term outlook is such a deep well of
sorrow that I can't get much happiness out of this year.'' This guy
used to work for President Bush.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And what they were doing this week is saying,
Wow, the deficit wasn't $423 billion, it was only $300 billion.
Now, what is clear, and what USA Today is not letting the President
get away with, is that they began by inflating the number that they
said the deficit would be at, so that when what happened occurred, when
they knew it would be much lower than that, it would look like an
accomplishment.
Well, if they are excited about a $300 billion deficit, then I really
want to know what their definition of fiscal responsibility is, because
that apparently for years has been the cornerstone of the Republican
Party's platform, that they are fiscally responsible. A $300 billion
deficit is fiscally responsible. And then on top of that they are
passing tax cuts for the wealthiest among us? And this is how those tax
cuts break out for folks?
I mean, we just passed a tax reconciliation bill just a few weeks ago
that, if you look at how it benefits people by their income, this is
what it really boils down to: That tax cut bill, which virtually all
the Republicans voted for, if you make between $10,000 and $20,000 a
year, which is around minimum wage, the one that they haven't raised
since 1997, you get about enough back to buy a Slurpee. If you make
between $40,000 and $50,000 a year, somewhat more than minimum wage,
you get enough back in that tax cut bill offered by the Republicans to
buy a gallon of gas.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Maybe.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Maybe. Because depending on how high the price
goes, you actually might not get all that back.
But then let us look at the folks who make more than $1 million, you
get enough money to buy a Hummer.
Now, I don't know about you, but I really think, if we are going to
pass tax cut legislation at all, if we are going to give tax dollars
back to the people, first and foremost, let's eliminate the deficit. Do
you keep passing--I mean, tax cuts are spending, Mr. Meek. It is not
free. We don't just print more money.
I just took my 7-year-old son to the Mint yesterday, and I watched
them print the money. But the tour guide didn't tell us, ``You know,
when we run out, we just print more.'' It doesn't work that way. They
obviously didn't go to Econ 101; otherwise, they wouldn't think it was
responsible to do what they have been doing.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And just to clarify, if you don't mind, Ms.
Wasserman Schultz, as you stated, we do not have the money to give to
these millionaires to go out and buy a Hummer. So where do we get it? I
don't know even if we have a chart here.
Mr. Meek has a chart. I will yield to the gentleman in a minute.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I will give you my chart.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We don't have the money to give, so we have to go
out and get it somewhere. We borrow this money from China, OPEC
countries, Japan, to give to a millionaire so that he can get a Hummer.
No American, I can guarantee you, believes that that is a good idea.
That can't be a good idea. Because now we owe China money, and we have
given the wealthiest people in our society a Hummer, and our kids are
left to foot the bill.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Ryan, you have people in America who, the
agony and the angst in the pit of their stomach that they have over
their credit card debt and the things that they actually need, like the
ability to fill up their gas tank, I mean, the churning that we know is
going on inside of mothers and fathers across this country over how
much debt they have versus what they have coming in.
I guess that churning isn't going on on the Republican side. There
doesn't appear to be any angst, there is no hand-wringing, there is no
worrying about it. Where is the outrage? It is nonexistent. They just
keep spending and spending and spending. The deficit keeps ballooning,
and then they say, Yeah, the deficit isn't $423 billion, it is $300
billion.
Well, it is just, it is too shocking for words. And then they have
the nerve, Mr. Meek, to call themselves the party of fiscal
responsibility. It is a joke.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you, Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Just because
they say it, ``they,'' going back to what Mr. Gingrich has called the
Republican majority, he who used to be Speaker of the House but now
calls his former colleagues ``they'' because it is foreign to him now,
``Just because you say it doesn't necessarily mean that it is true.''
Now, Mr. Delahunt, this is true. What is true is the fact that we
have borrowed $53.8 billion from Canada because we can't afford to pay
our bills, so they bought our debt. Korea, $66.5 billion. Germany,
$65.7 billion. OPEC nations.
Who are these OPEC nations? We hear about them on the news, but we
don't know who they are. They are Iran, they are Iraq, they are Libya,
they are Saudi Arabia, they are Venezuela, Nicaragua, Kuwait, United
Arab Emirates, Ecuador, and on and on and on, Qatar, on and on and on.
They have said, since America and the United States majority House of
Representatives and the President wants to overspend and give away the
money and they can't afford to do what they are doing, we will buy
their debt. Taiwan, $71.3 billion. The Caribbean, $115.3 billion. The
U.K. is at $223.2 billion. And you have China that is at $249.8 billion
and Japan which is at $682.8 billion. And folks wonder, why are we in
the situation where we are now?
It pains me to silhouette the country, silhouette of the continental
United States and put those countries over it, but we have to break
this down and let the American people know this is not about party,
this is not about what you may feel about a man or a woman representing
you.
This is about representation for you. Forget about what convention
you went to last time. Forget about if you have an R or an I or an
Independent. It is about America. And what the Republican majority has
done effectively,
[[Page H5117]]
they have borrowed themselves into a situation so that when parents are
going to schools, let us just look at this, here is the education
budget and what we invest in education and this is in the billions as
relates to this chart.
This is what we invest in homeland security. This is in the billions.
Our veterans allowing us to salute one flag, Mr. Ryan, this is what we
invest in veterans and their health care and their needs. And, this is
what we invest, thank you, a la the Republican majority here in this
House, the rubber-stamp Congress and the President of the United
States, who I do not fault personally. I don't fault the President for
doing what he does. I fault the U.S. House of Representatives and the
Senate for allowing it to happen with very little oversight.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I wouldn't be too complimentary. This President
hasn't vetoed one spending bill, and he comes to the Rose Garden and
says the Republican Congress needs to control their spending. He has
not vetoed one spending bill.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Because you came in on the back end of my words,
I am telling you this. The President is the President of the United
States. At the end of his term he can no longer run for President of
the United States.
Guess what the difference is between Members of Congress and the
President. We are up every 2 years. The American people can bring about
change in November, and then a transition of power in January for
representation. No matter what their party affiliation is, I know
Republicans personally that I know that I represent in my own district
and outside of my district that have a problem that we are spending
more on the debt, paying down the debt, than we are investing in
education, homeland security of all things, and veteran affairs.
There are individuals right now, and I just went through the veterans
hospital during the Fourth of July break to go visit those individuals
that just returned to Iraq and Afghanistan and those individuals that
fought before them, and I can tell you they are not getting what they
deserve. They are having to wait in some rural areas because the rural
clinic is only open 2 days out of a month.
These are the people that have laid their blood down. These are the
people that their friends have died beside them, and they are asking
them to suck it up.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Republican majority is allowing
this debt to overwhelm. You can stack eight of the veteran investments
up to the debt, you can stack lower homeland security probably 10 up to
the stack as it relates to the $250 billion that we are paying on the
debt. And as it relates to education, you can go two more times as it
relates to investment in education. And, meanwhile, folks come down
here with a straight face, Mr. Delahunt, and say that we are fiscal
conservatives and we know how to govern?
{time} 1845
The American people know it. That is the reason why the polling is
showing they are fed up with what is going on here. They are willing to
give Democrats or somebody else an opportunity to lead.
Mr. Ryan, that is the reason why I said that I am not concerned with
the President of the United States. He is going to do what he has been
doing and will continue to do. Just like he said, if there is going to
be a change in Iraqi policy, that is something for future presidents,
not him. He said that as though he lives in a kingdom. This is a
democracy.
The only way we will be able to represent those troops and those
individuals that deserve representation is that the American people are
fully aware and educated with the facts, and that is the reason why we
are on this floor, to share that.
Mr. Delahunt, thank you for yielding, sir.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, I think you have summed it up. What irony that at
this moment in American history the American people are borrowing from
Communist China so that the most affluent among us, truly the most
affluent among us, 1 percent of the population, receives a
disproportionate tax cut. I mean, if this was written in a novel 10 or
15 years ago, people would be shaking their heads.
We are borrowing money from Red China so that the wealthiest
Americans can buy a Hummer, because that is really what is happening.
That is connecting the dots. Of course Democrats support tax reduction,
or tax cuts, tax cuts that are fair. That is the difference. You know,
a family that is supporting their sons and daughters in terms of their
tuition bills for college education, there should be tax credits, there
should be tax deductions. I mean we could list a vast number of
thoughtful tax cuts that would benefit everybody, that would benefit
the middle class rather than creating a society in these United States
of those that have and those that are getting less and less every day.
Real income, real income for that family right square in the middle of
our population has declined, and that is why people are unhappy.
And of course we are all supporting with our tax dollars the war in
Iraq. It is costing us $8 billion a month, or $2 billion a week. Just
imagine if that money was going into building roads here, to
rehabilitating schools, to providing scholarships for American children
to go to college, to invest in our national health system what we could
do with that money. But we are doing all of those things not in the
United States, we are doing it in Iraq. And we are losing the war on
terror because of the distraction by this administration from the real
enemy, because they wanted to go to war in Iraq and remove Saddam
Hussein, and that is what is happening in this country.
Yet you are so right, Mr. Meek. What do we hear? We hear, boy, there
is an immigration problem and it is a hot button issue. And it is a hot
button issue. But they refuse to accept responsibility. It is like they
live in an alternate reality. It is not the real world. How did we get
to the point where there are somewhere between, the numbers I hear are
10 million to 12 million illegal immigrants? Because they refused to
provide the funding for detention centers, for immigration agents, or
for border control officials.
When we brought them to the floor, and I know that I voted for those
increased fundings, yet we hear from our friends today about they are
standing up, but I wonder how they voted. I would hope that each and
every Member of this Congress on both sides of the aisle would go back,
review their voting record on all of the amendments that we put forth
to increase border security and see how they voted, and then come to
this floor and acknowledge that vote before they speak.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. If the gentleman would yield, it is not just the
eight or nine that I listed, as you were probably walking down here,
the eight or nine times that Democrats have offered to increase border
security and border patrol and actually fund it and not just make the
promise to do it. Think about the Medicare prescription drug bill. One
of the first things we will do when there is a change of power in
January is make sure that with the Medicare prescription drug bill we
will allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services the ability to
negotiate down the drug prices to save the taxpayers' money.
Now, that is good policy from any party that is running the
government, but our friends on the other side have refused to implement
that basic thing. So we have tried for border security, we have tried
to reduce the cost of the Medicare prescription drug bill, giving the
Secretary of HHS the ability to negotiate down the drug prices, and we
will increase the minimum wage on the first day we are here when we
take over in January. That means a pay raise for all Americans because
that will trickle up and push everybody's wages up.
That was proven. When we raised the minimum wage in 1997, the economy
grew 11 million new jobs. And in the States that had a higher minimum
wage than the national minimum wage, there was increased numbers of
small businesses that were created, new start-ups, and retail small
businesses were increased. This is good for the economy.
In the first week we will be here in January, we will reduce student
loan interest rates and we will cut them in half, both for parent loans
and for student loans. We will have a significant impact in the lives
of many, many Americans just in the first couple of
[[Page H5118]]
days from what we are going to pass out of the House: Increase in
minimum wage, lower student loan rates for you and your family,
increased border security, and allowing the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to begin to negotiate on behalf of all the Medicare
recipients.
This is not brain surgery. We are not saying we have this grand
elaborate scheme that we cooked up somewhere and we are bringing it
before the American people. This is basic fundamental stuff. But when
you are not so attached to the special interests, when you don't have a
K Street Project in which there is this give and take with the big
lobbying firms down here, you are able to govern in a way that benefits
all of the American people. And that is what we are trying to get at.
Let us take the country in a new direction, where we have a
philosophy where everybody contributes to America and everybody
benefits. We are actually looking out for the common good. We will
provide for the common defense and we will increase the common wealth.
You know, I go to some of these States like Virginia and Pennsylvania
and Massachusetts, and they are all commonwealths. That philosophy,
what do we have in common, how can we pool the common wealth to benefit
everyone? Everyone contributes and everyone benefits. And what we have
now, Mr. Delahunt and Mr. Meek, is a situation that has set up a system
that has been corroded and corrupted. Now, I am not saying by
individual Members. I think over time this happens.
Jefferson said that every few years we need to have a revolution.
Well, we need a bloodless rebellion to shift power out of the hands of
the Republican controlled House, Republican controlled Senate, and the
Republican White House. This is George Bush's Congress, Mr. Delahunt.
Let us make no mistake about it. They do what he says. They follow his
lead. They are afraid to stand up to him.
He hasn't vetoed one spending bill or one bill that this Congress has
passed out. They rubber stamp the Bush philosophy and they consistently
agree with the President. This is his Congress.
I yield to my friend.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, I think that is underscored by the fact when we
hear them express concerns about immigration, about illegal
immigration, we have not heard a single voice from our friends on the
Republican side criticizing the President for the failure to enforce.
Well, maybe one voice. Maybe he is here tonight. But no criticizing the
President for the failure to enforce our immigration laws, particularly
against employers.
Imagine, three enforcements against American businesses for hiring
illegal immigrants in the year 2004 when in the last year of the
Clinton administration there was far in excess of some 400. That is a
disgrace. And it is the responsibility of this Republican Congress to
criticize their lack of aggressive oversight on this issue. The problem
has become all of ours, but it was created by the lack of funding to
strengthen our borders while Democrats have been putting forth proposal
after proposal to increase those numbers.
With that, I yield back to my friend from Ohio.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I appreciate your yielding as we begin to wrap up.
Maybe Mr. Meek could get that chart down there and give us the Web site
as we begin to close.
I think you can be an amateur historian to recognize what has
happened here; that in 1994 there was a move afoot to change things.
Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, and there was a crew of them who came to
this floor, like we come to this floor, and like we will continue to
come to this floor, to talk about issues. They were talking about
balancing the budget and they were talking about instilling fiscal
discipline. Mr. Meek showed earlier the quote from Mr. Gingrich, and I
read last week in the Boston Globe a comment from Dick Armey, the
former House Republican leader, who said ``I'm not sure what this
Congress has accomplished.''
These are two of the main leaders of that revolution. The Republicans
have gotten very far away from what they wanted to accomplish and, I
think, what this country deserves. And when that happens, Madam
Speaker, it becomes time for a change in America. I think that is where
we are.
Again, if you just look at what the Democratic Congress will do
within the first couple of days that we get in, that this Republican
Congress has failed to do in the past 5 or 6 years under complete
Republican dominance, we will raise the minimum wage, we will cut
student loans in half for both student loans and parent loans, we will
implement the 9/11 recommendations to make sure we provide for the
common defense of the United States of America, and we will allow the
Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate down drug prices
for the Medicare bill to not only save the taxpayers money but drive
down drug costs for everyone.
We are going to invest in the small business, as our small businesses
are trying to retool themselves. We need assistance for them with the
Manufacturing Extension Program and with the SBA 7(a) loan program. We
want to give local community development organizations the tools they
need to help their small businesses, and some of these programs help
businesses. They send out a couple of engineers to help them retool, to
make sure that they are streamlining their businesses, to make sure
they can find export markets. This is a positive thing, because many
small businesses can't afford to do it.
So we've got an agenda. Put us in, coach, we are looking for an
opportunity to play. We have an agenda, and I think the American people
will recognize in just a few short days what the difference is between
the current Republican leadership and what the Democrats will do.
Our Web site is www.House Democrats.gov/30something, and all of these
charts and statistics are available on that, Madam Speaker.
____________________