[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 93 (Monday, July 17, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H5272-H5277]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Schmidt). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is 
recognized for the remaining time until midnight.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, it is an honor to address the 
House. And we would like to also thank the Democratic leadership for 
allowing us to have the time.
  As you know, the 30-something Working Group, we come to the floor 
daily to share not only with the Members of the House, but also the 
American people, about plans we have that is in holding or in waiting, 
not because of the fact that we are not willing to move forth on behalf 
of the American people, it is because the Republican majority has 
decided not to govern on the side of the American people.
  Mr. Speaker, I feel that this is very, very hard core for everyday 
Americans, because they are in waiting, not only in the area of minimum 
wage, but also affordable fuel prices and real solutions as relates to 
protecting our country and also making sure that our veterans who have 
allowed us to serve, who have allowed us to salute one flag, will be 
honored in the area of health care and other areas that we have 
promised them.
  Mr. Speaker, I am going to start off my comments, and I am glad Mr. 
Delahunt is here, and I know others are on their way to the floor, to 
at least talk about this minimum wage conversation that we are having 
here on the floor of the House of Representatives. I feel that we 
should take action. We want to take action on this side of the aisle, 
Democrats united in making sure that some 6 million-plus Americans are 
able to get a pay increase, something that Members of Congress have 
enjoyed over a number of years, but everyday working Americans are not 
able to receive more minimum wage than what they are receiving right 
now. They are, right now, making $5 and some change. And I mean, it is 
unconscionable, Mr. Speaker, for Members of the House to be able to 
walk away with an increase, cost-of-living increase; meanwhile, those 
individuals that are punching in and punching out every day, are still 
making the same rate that they were making in 1997. It would be an 
uproar here in this House if Members of Congress had not received a pay 
raise since 1997.
  One thing that I can say here on this side of the aisle, the 
Democratic leadership and the Democratic Caucus has said we will not 
stand for an increase for Members of Congress to make more money if we 
are not going to raise the level of minimum wage for everyday 
Americans.
  And so, again, Mr. Speaker, we come with third-party validators. We 
come with the facts to share with the American people, and we come to 
let the American people know, and Members on the majority side, that we 
have the will and the desire to lead, and we will if we have the 
opportunity after November.
  I just wanted to share a few things because there are a lot of folks 
that are out there saying that they are fighting on behalf of the 
everyday American. So I thought I would just bring a couple of visual 
aids, and also some information. This is the source of the College 
Board 2005 as it relates to the census and what Americans are dealing 
with.
  I want to start with this next chart here. I want to start with this 
chart.

[[Page H5273]]

Minimum wage. And this is real economic change under Bush. Here you 
have the minimum wage, Mr. Speaker, that is at zero starting in 1997 to 
now. Since 1997 to now, whole milk has gone up 24 percent. Bread has 
gone up 25 percent. A 4-year public college education has gone up 77 
percent. Health care insurance has gone up 97 percent. Meanwhile, 
Americans are still making $5 and change. Regular gas has gone up 136 
percent, Mr. Speaker. Still no message from the Republican majority for 
everyday working Americans that punch in and punch out every day.

                              {time}  2310

  Here are some other statistics: still from 1997, no increase in the 
minimum wage for everyday working Americans. College tuition has gone 
up in private institutions 40 percent. Gas prices, again, as it relates 
to the middle class, has gone up 47 percent and 55 percent for 
prescription drugs. I think it is important that we look at those.
  To go further, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we share 
this. The facts are hard, but they are true. In 1998 a Member of 
Congress received a raise of $3,100. That was in 1998. In 1998 the 
minimum wage was zero. Again, in 2000 Members of Congress received a 
$4,600 raise. That is more money. Everyday working Americans in 2000, 
minimum wage, zero, thanks to the Republican majority.
  I just said in 2000, Mr. Delahunt, Members received a pretty 
substantial raise. In 2001 Members of Congress received a $3,800 raise. 
Of course, we are not minimum-wage workers. The American people in 
2001, zero. Nothing. The Republican majority said they are not going to 
have it. In 2002, again a $4,900, that is a lot of money, increase for 
Members of Congress. The American people in 2002, zero.
  It pays to have a voting card in Congress. You can give yourself a 
raise, but the folks that elect you just have to suck it up.
  Now, this is like on a roll here in Congress. In 2003, a $4,700 
increase in Members of Congress' pay. The American people, guess what, 
zero. Nothing at all, thanks to the Republican majority. In 2004, a 
$3,400 raise for Members of Congress. Guess what, Members, American 
people, minimum wage raises, zero.
  These are the facts. I challenge any Member on the Republican side, 
the majority, to come down and challenge me on these facts.
  In 2005 it continues, a $4,000 raise. Once again, you are a Member of 
Congress that comes up here, who say they are representing you, it is a 
wonderful thing. Get a raise in 2005, $4,000. The American people, 
zero, Mr. Speaker.
  In 2006 Members of Congress' proposed raise, $3,100, Mr. Delahunt. My 
9-year-old son and my 11-year-old daughter can guess, the American 
people to this date, Mr. Speaker, zero.
  Now, I want to go back to this chart because I think it is very 
revealing and very accurate: ``I have been in this business for 25 
years, and I never voted for an increase in the minimum wage and I am 
opposed to it, and I think that a vast majority of our conference is 
opposed to it.'' That is the leader of the Republican Congress. That is 
the majority leader.
  Now, Mr. Delahunt, there are Members that come to this floor and say 
the Democrats are just demagoguing. There are people who come to this 
floor and say we are for you; they are not for leading.
  I think it is important, Mr. Delahunt, that we come to the floor and 
share with the American people and the Members of Congress that we will 
not rest even though we are in the minority, that we are still willing 
to fight for them.
  Now, the difference between the Republican majority and the 
Democratic minority, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the majority has the 
power to be able to make things happen here in this House on behalf of 
the American people as it relates to the minimum wage, and it is fair 
play. I went through this list. Pay increases year after year, $4,000 
here, $4,700 there, $3,100 here, and zero since 1997 on behalf of the 
American people who punch in and punch out every day.
  Meanwhile, health care cost is up. Meanwhile, the cost of bread and 
milk is up. Meanwhile, gas prices are up by 136 percent. But back at 
the ranch and here in this House, the Members of Congress are being 
taken care of. The special interests are being taken care of. But guess 
what, the individuals who woke up early on a Tuesday morning for 
representation are being left behind since 1997, and there are Members 
on the majority side saying over their dead bodies, literally, will 
they receive an increase because they are so indebted, Mr. Delahunt, to 
their special interests.
  So all we can fight with, Mr. Speaker, here is the fact, not fiction 
but fact, that we have a Republican majority that is willing to govern 
for the few, for those individuals who have the opportunity to come to 
Washington and to be able to gain access through the K Street Project 
and other programs that allow them to give politically and have gangs 
here in the House.
  A former Member of this House used to boast about the fact that if 
they were not on the list of contributors, they couldn't come in and 
see them. That is a former Member of the House, and if anybody wants to 
challenge me on it from the majority side, I will be happy to reveal 
that former Member's name. I think we all know, and it was an active 
program in the House, and I believe there are still some elements of 
that program now. The fact that special interests do not want an 
individual making $5 and some change to receive a couple dollars' 
increase is very unfortunate. And, Mr. Delahunt, I am very concerned 
about that.
  Let me just take 3 more minutes, Mr. Delahunt, and then I am going to 
yield to you because you have some very interesting charts over there.
  Let us talk about who is getting what. In the past you have heard me 
read this, and I want to read it again because, when it comes down to 
when their constituents want to know whose side they are on, I want the 
Members to be armed with the facts.
  I am proud that I am trying to do everything I can do on behalf of my 
constituents back in the 17th Congressional District in Dade and 
Broward County. But by their sending me to Congress and Mr. Delahunt to 
Congress, they federalized us to represent the people of the United 
States of America, and I think it is our obligation, Mr. Speaker, to 
share the facts.
  Members can follow me. They can go on Washingtonpost.com. This was an 
article November 16, 2005, on the front page: ``A White House document 
shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President 
Dick Cheney's energy task force in 2001, something long suspected by 
environmentalists but denied as recently as'' a week ago ``by industry 
officials testifying before Congress. The document, obtained this week 
by The Washington Post, shows that officials from the ExxonMobil 
Corporation, Phillips, Shell Oil Company, and BP America Inc. met in 
the White House complex with the Cheney aids who were developing 
national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which 
are still being debated'' here in the House.
  This is an article. It is not from the Democratic Caucus. It is not 
from my office or Mr. Delahunt's office.
  Let us see what happened. That meeting, Mr. Delahunt and Members, was 
in 2001. Here are the profit margins of big oil companies since that 
meeting: in 2002 I think that was a pretty good meeting to go to, $34 
billion in profits, thanks to the Republican majority's passing policy 
that would allow oil companies to spend the taxpayers' dollars and to 
be able to have subsidies and make these profits. In 2003 $59 billion 
in profits. I think that meeting was worth going to and whoever 
recommended and got them into the White House complex to meet with the 
Cheney aides, I think they got a promotion and possibly a bonus.

                              {time}  2320

  In 2004, $84 billion oil profits up. Guess who is paying for it? The 
American people. In 2005, $113 billion in profits. And the numbers are 
not even in from 2006.
  Mr. Speaker, I know that these facts have to have some Members who 
may be in their offices right now or sitting up in their beds feel 
uncomfortable. But, unfortunately, that is not happening, because it 
continues.
  Why is this man smiling here? It is nothing against him. I don't have 
anything personally against oil companies. They are getting what the 
majority Republican Conference here in this House has allowed them to 
have. It is

[[Page H5274]]

one thing for someone to say ``I will support you and your political 
endeavors.'' It is another thing for you to say ``I am with you all the 
way, even if it costs my constituents more at the pump.''
  Here is a man that a lot of workers wish they had such a deal. A $398 
million retirement package and a $2 million tax break ala the 
Republican majority. An Exxon former executive.
  It is almost, Mr. Speaker, unfair. Someone may say that. If I didn't 
have the third-party validators, the Congressional Record and votes by 
the majority to back up what I am saying, some folks would say that is 
unfair. I wouldn't even be able to walk the halls of Congress or talk 
to my colleagues on the Republican side if I wasn't telling the truth.
  I think it is important that everyone understands, if you are a 
Republican, you have to have a problem with what I just presented. You 
have to. If you are a Democrat, you have to have a problem, the 
information I am sharing with you that the Republican majority is 
allowing to happen.
  We on this side have called for an increase in the minimum wage. We 
on this side have called for tough legislation on price gouging. We on 
this side have talked about making ourselves energy independent; not 
investing in the Middle East, but investing in the Midwest as it 
relates to E-85.
  So I think it is important that everyone understands when we are in 
the majority, if the American people see fit, we will put forth policy 
that will benefit all Americans. I think it is important.
  If you are an independent, you have to have a problem with the fact 
that Members of Congress have received thousands upon thousands of 
dollars of raises since 1997, and still no response from the Republican 
majority as it relates to the minimum wage.
  Mr. Delahunt, those are the facts for now. This book is full of 
facts. These books are full of action; balancing the budget, real 
homeland security, where local communities don't have to tax themselves 
because we have done away with the COPS Program. We made it difficult 
for local communities to be able to apply for homeland security, home 
front security, because, guess what, when something goes down in a 
city, be it small or big, it won't be the Department of Homeland 
Security showing up, it will be a local police department.
  This is my last one here, and it is a real plan, ready to go, Mr. 
Speaker, on energy. Anyone can go on House Democrats.gov and get all of 
these plans. They just didn't come up tonight. We have been coming to 
this floor, and now the American people are going to have an 
opportunity to be not Democrats, not Republicans, not independents, but 
voting on behalf of this country, and to make sure that we have 
representation here in this House.
  Mr. Delahunt?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Meek, I want to commend you on that eloquent 
exposition of the issues that I know resonate with the American people. 
Could you do me a favor? Could you hold up that last book once more?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Which one?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. The last one. Hold it up, will you.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. The energy plan. Yes, sir.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Just show it. I hope that those that are watching can 
see the cover. Except I would expand on the title, ``Energy Plan.'' I 
would add a dash, and I would add the words ``A Blueprint to Win the 
War Against Terrorism,'' because therein, in that plan, lies the 
secret, and it shouldn't be a secret, because I think it is obvious to 
many of us, that if we can adopt an energy plan, no longer will we find 
ourselves hostage to governments and societies that disagree with our 
values. And that is the case now.
  Six years into this administration, and gas has gone from $1.40 a 
gallon at the pump to now it is over $3. The Middle East is 
destabilizing.
  But the reality is, and we spoke about this, myself and some other 
colleagues earlier, today we are losing the war on terror. At least 
that is the opinion of people, including the American people, in 34 
countries out of 35 where a poll commissioned by the BBC was taken. 
Just recently, a bipartisan group of experts in foreign policy and 
national security concluded that we are losing the war on terror.
  Now, in the previous hour my good friend from Iowa made the 
observation, why should we care whether people like us or not? Why 
should we care? Because, again, if you take a look other polls, and not 
just, by the way, in the Middle East, but on every continent, the image 
of the United States is poor. We are reviled. As the GAO said, anti-
American sentiment is broadening and deepening. Yet my friend from Iowa 
says, why should we care?
  I think what he meant is why should we care about those who are 
sympathetic to or are active participants in acts of terror against the 
United States, and that makes sense.
  But we should care, Mr. Speaker. We should care about the rest of the 
world, because if we are going to have success in the war on terror, we 
need other people to help us. We cannot do it alone.
  If I can just cite one example, Mr. Meek, in a story just last week 
in the Washington Times, Secretary Rumsfeld was in Tajikistan, a 
Central Asian country, and while he was there he expressed concern 
about what is transpiring in Afghanistan. This is what he had to say, 
if I can just ask for your indulgence for a minute. I have to put my 
glasses on, Mr. Meek. You know I have a birthday coming up.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. It is tomorrow, Mr. Delahunt.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I didn't want the world to know that, but you let that 
secret out.
  The story reads, ``U.S. forces invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 to 
oust the radical Taliban regime. Although the country now has a 
democratically-elected government, the Taliban has been making a 
comeback.''
  Now to quote the Secretary. This is Mr. Rumsfeld. ``Western Europe 
ought to have an enormous interest in the success of Afghanistan, and 
it is going to take a lot more effort on their part for the Karzai 
government to be successful.'' He was alluding to the President of 
Afghanistan, Mr. Karzai.

                              {time}  2330

  But what he is saying is Western Europe has got to help us more. So 
what we are looking for is help from Western Europe to contribute 
troops, to contribute resources so that that fragile democracy in 
Afghanistan can survive.
  So I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is important what the 
British people think of the United States. Now, again, if you would 
bear with me, let me go to an article, Mr. Speaker, that appears in the 
New York Times dated July 3. Now, let's be really clear. This is not 
Pakistan, this is not Tajikistan, this is not Mexico, this is not 
Venezuela, this is not President Putin's Russia, this is the United 
Kingdom, with whom it is written we have a special relationship, Mr. 
Speaker.
  Where we have had a relationship between our peoples that is 
extraordinary for decades. Now, according to this poll, it was asked 
whether the United States is doing a bad job in Iraq, is indifferent to 
what the rest of the world thinks of it, and whether it is obsessed 
with money.
  Now, according to the pollster, in an analysis by him, this was one 
of the prominent British papers that commissioned the poll, it 
indicated that there has never been a time when America was held in 
such low esteem on this side of the Atlantic.
  The special relationship that British leaders have long believed 
exists between their country and the United States may still live in 
Downing Street and at Camp David, but it has atrophied among the 
British public.
  Among the responders in the new poll, Mr. Meek, 77 percent did not 
see America as a beacon of hope for the world. Asked to rate President 
Bush as a leader, more than three-quarters described him as either 
pretty poor or terrible. Seventy-two percent said his foreign policy, 
instead of being driven by a desire to build democracy, was merely a 
cover for American interests.
  About two-thirds of responders said that they believed that American 
troops were doing a bad job in trying to win the hearts and minds in 
Iraq. Eighty-three percent of responders said the United States does 
not care what the rest of the world thinks.
  We should care. To answer the question that was put forth by my 
friend and our colleague from Iowa, the reason that we have to care is 
because we live in a world. If we are going to

[[Page H5275]]

achieve our goals, we have to do them in a multi-lateral way. We need 
the British people to support us. We need the Irish people, we need 
people all over this world. We want to reach out and be that beacon of 
hope.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, you know it would be nice if the 
American people supported this administration. It would be nice if the 
administration had a policy that the American people could support, or 
that in spite of the incredible lack of support for the American 
people, it would be nice if the administration actually showed that 
that mattered to them, instead of continuing down the path of ``staying 
the course'' and doing exactly as they think is right and to heck with 
what anyone else in America thinks.
  I mean, of course we care about our place in the world, and about the 
vision that we are viewed through, the lens we are viewed through. But 
I do not understand why the administration and why this President and 
this Republican leadership, our colleagues, do not seem to care or 
understand how the American people are viewing them.
  I mean, there are a number of issues I know you have gone over 
tonight, the minimum wage is one of them. I have been witnessing the 
hearings that have been taking place around the country on border 
security and the argument over whether border security or an earned 
path to citizenship is more important.
  And what I think has been extremely humorous is that the Republicans 
on the other side, the Members on the other side of the aisle, in the 
other body, adhering to the rules, Mr. Speaker, have taken to calling 
the McCain-Hagel, I think there is another Republican that is part of 
that legislation. It is two or three Republicans that are heading it 
up. And Martinez, our own Senator from Florida.
  But McCain, and Hagel and Martinez are heading up that legislation. 
Yet now they seem to be calling it, or attempting to call it the Reid-
Kennedy bill or the Reid-Kennedy bill, neither of whom are sponsors of 
that legislation.
  So what they are trying to do is lead the American people, and if 
they say it enough times so that they believe it, that it is the 
Democrats that are taking the initiative on this immigration policy 
when it is clearly Republicans.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Are you aware, and again I know we are changing 
subjects here, but I do not know if you are aware that there has been a 
decline in the number of enforcement actions against employers for 
hiring undocumented workers.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Not only am I aware of that, Mr. Delahunt, 
thank you for leading me right into that lovely chart that we have 
here, that graphically depicts the differences between border security 
and immigration under a Democratic administration versus border 
security under this Republican Bush administration.
  Let us peruse the numbers. The Republicans have been talking a good 
game about how important border security truly is to them, especially 
our colleagues here in the House. They have been beating that drum over 
and over again.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. If I can interrupt just once more. Of course you are 
aware that the Republicans have been in the majority in this chamber 
for 12 years.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Well, I am quite aware of that, they have been 
well within control of this institution for 12 years.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. They have controlled the White House.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. For 6 years.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. They have controlled the United States Senate I think 
for 10 out of 12 years
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So this was entirely theirs.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I think it is important that people understand that and 
understand who is Washington, D.C.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Entirely within their control to crack down on 
border security, to hire more Border Patrol agents, enforcement actions 
against employers who hire illegal immigrants illegally.
  So let's take a look at the numbers. We use third party validators. 
By the way, it is a pleasure to join you here once again, my 30 
Something colleagues. I apologize for not doing that initially when I 
began, just jumping in.
  But let us look at the average number of new border patrol agents 
added per year under the Clinton administration from 1993 to 2000, 
versus the Bush administration between 2001 and 2005. Under President 
Clinton, 642 per year border patrol agents were added per year. And 
under President Bush they have added an average of 411.
  Now there is some real commitment to border security. How about we 
look at the INS, which is now CIS. But the INS fines for immigration 
enforcement, that is fines against employers who hired illegal 
immigrants illegally and have gotten caught.
  Okay. Under the Democratic administration in 1999, President Clinton 
was in office, there were 417 cases where INS fined employers for 
hiring, for getting caught hiring illegal immigrants. Guess how many 
there were in 2004, a year in which President Bush was in office?

                              {time}  2340

  Mr. DELAHUNT. That was the year that some started to express concern 
about border enforcement.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes. That is when you started to hear the drum 
beginning to beat, and beat very loudly.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Can you tell us what that number is, as compared to the 
417 under President Clinton?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I would be glad to. We went from 417 
immigration enforcement actions against employers under President 
Clinton to 3. Three under President Bush in 2004.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Three, one, two, three.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If I tried to count to 417, the hour would 
end, and we wouldn't be able to say anything else. So I will move on to 
the next one.
  How about when we are talking about immigration fraud cases? If the 
Republicans are so committed to border security and making sure that we 
crack down on illegal immigrants and prevent the people who don't 
belong here and who are coming here the wrong way, then you would think 
that there would be many, many more cases under the Republicans than 
the Democrats. But in 1995, a year in which we had a Democratic 
President, there were 6,455 cases pursued against immigration fraud.
  Then you fast-forward to 2003 under the Bush administration, the 
Republican administration, a year in which supposedly you had an 
entirely Republican-controlled government, and the ability for them to 
actually pursue more than 6,455 cases. They pursued 1,389, a 78 percent 
drop.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Could I just submit a hypothesis for a minute?
  You know, one of the leaders in the neoconservative movement, a Mr. 
Grover Norquist, coined an interesting term called shrinking 
government, until it practically disappears. This neoconservative 
ideology, I suggest, is responsible for those statistics. Because what 
we have done in the past 6, 8 years, is reduced government to the point 
when no longer are we adequately enforcing our laws as well as our 
border.
  So what we see is a real problem that was created by this Republican 
majority working with a Republican President.
  Did you have a chance, by any stretch, to reading the lament of the 
former Speaker of this House, Mr. Gingrich?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I did, actually. I think we also have a 
graphic depiction of that. But really what this comes down to, Mr. 
Delahunt, is a clear indication of who is for immigration enforcement 
and border security, and who is just kidding; who is in favor of 
putting action behind the words, and who just speaks the words.
  There is one more statistic that was more difficult to graphically 
depict, so I will go through this last one, which is also important, 
because the Bush administration has touted that in its first 5 years, 
it caught and returned 6 million undocumented individuals. That is 
actually a drop in any 5-year period under the Clinton administration.
  So, you know, this is all just a lot of puffery, a whole lot of 
chest-pounding, which they seem to be really, really good at. But when 
you scratch below the surface, just a little bit, there is no depth, 
there is nothing there.

[[Page H5276]]

  And, clearly, the former House Speaker, Mr. Gingrich, the warrior, 
arguably the architect of the so-called Republican revolution, he has 
had a few things to say, as we talked about our 30-something hours on 
this. As recently as July 14th, which was 4 days ago, this was him 
commenting on the broken system in Washington.
  He said, Congress really has to think about how fundamentally wrong 
the current system is.
  When facing crises at home and abroad, he said, it is important to 
have an informed, independent legislative branch coming to grips with 
this reality and not sitting around and waiting for Presidential 
leadership.
  Clearly when it comes to border security and immigration, there 
hasn't been a whole lot of Presidential leadership, not when it comes 
to action. He has been real good at talking.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Can you tell me what his solution to the crisis that 
this country is now facing in terms of its democratic institutions and 
its relationship between a White House that has acquired incredible 
power and a Congress that continues to see power to the point where it 
has become a rubber stamp for a President that has no restraints 
whatsoever? What does Newt Gingrich say is that solution?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is what has been truly unbelievable. This 
leadership, our Republican colleagues, have just been totally willing 
to cede power, just give up the legislative authority that we have, and 
say, Mr. President, you take it, we are out.
  So Mr. Gingrich had something else to say just the other day. He said 
the correct answer is for the American people to just start firing 
people.
  I don't think he was talking about anything other than this fall 
during the elections, because they are not, they are clearly, they 
clearly do not have their priorities straight. They clearly only speak 
words and don't back them up with action. They clearly only bob their 
heads up and down like the bobble-head Republicans that they have been 
and rubber-stamp everything that the President asks them to do.
  There it is right there. There is the big old Republican rubber stamp 
which each of them has essentially wrapped their arms around and agreed 
to adhere to.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, I would suggest that that is a remarkable 
statement by an individual who led the Republican Party to a majority 
in this House.
  When he says it is time for the American people to start firing 
everyone, that is to me a demonstration that he recognizes that the 
government is not functioning as it ought to function. We are allowing 
this institution, this House, to wither.
  Government isn't withering; it is not government, it is Congress that 
is allowing democracy to wither. That is dangerous.
  Unless you have a Congress that stands up and says no, and serves as 
a true check and balance, then you have a democracy that is at risk.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Delahunt, I can't help but grab this rubber 
stamp and help the Members realize that they are making history in all 
the wrong ways. This rubber-stamp Republican majority has allowed this 
President to have free rein, not only on everyday American workers, 
retirees, veterans and the American taxpayer dollars, this President 
rubber stamped, okayed by this Republican majority, has borrowed $1.05 
trillion from foreign nations. At no other time in the history of this 
Republic, in 4 years or in 224 years, has that amount of money been 
borrowed.
  The Republican rubber-stamp Congress has allowed that to happen.
  Now we have OPEC countries, Japan, China, Korea, Caribbean, Germany, 
you name it. They are borrowing. Canada, they are buying our debt. We 
are borrowing from them. The Republican majority allowed the Bush White 
House to get what they want as it relates to a rubber stamp.
  Like I said, it is not even fair. I mean, Time magazine, freshly 
minted, the 17th edition, folks can either get it in the mail or buy 
it, I don't have any stock in Time Warner or anything.

                              {time}  2350

  This is where we are because this time right now, when the President 
and the 109th Congress is history making, not history making being the 
Congress that did so much for the American people but the Congress that 
allows the President of the United States to get this country in a 
position that it is in because the checks and balances that are in the 
Constitution and how we are supposed to govern and carry out oversight 
was not adhered to.
  Here it is, Time magazine, The End of Cowboy Democracy, what Korea, 
Iraq and Iran teaches us about the limits of going it alone. And then 
you go on to page 20, and it talks about how the White House has just 
now realized that they have a problem.
  Now, it would be okay if it was just the White House, and this is not 
about the President. The President is the President of the United 
States. He is not running again for reelection, but Members of the 
House have to run every 2 years, every 6 years in the Senate.
  It goes on and it outlines quotes from people that were formerly in 
the administration, folks that are in the administration now, and they 
are saying now they realize that they have a problem. Well, it is not 
them. It is the United States of America. You heard Mr. Delahunt 
talking about the people in the U.K. Guess what, the people in the U.K. 
have bought $223.2 billion of our debt. This is what they think about 
us. Leave alone that. Ms. Wasserman Schultz talked about what the 
American people think about us.
  So the alternative, in my opinion, is that we have plans on this side 
that is being not only demagogued by the Republican majority but not 
even allowed to come to the floor. HouseDemocrats.gov, okay, energizing 
America, farmers fueling our energy independence. Here is a little 
short piece on it, bigger plan.
  Real Security, on the Web site once again, ready to go, will not be 
heard here on the House. Republican majority does not want to hear it 
because they feel they have the master plan and that everything is in 
line. You heard Ms. Wasserman Schultz talk about enforcement of illegal 
workers under the Bush administration, the funding of border agents. 
The facts are the facts.
  The Innovation Agenda, CEOs of American companies are saying we are 
ready to have math and science teachers; we are ready to work on real 
innovation in turning out the next workforce that we need. Republican 
majority talks about it but has not acted on it.
  So I think it is important that we continue to share this with the 
American people. It may be repetitive. We may have to use Mr. Gingrich 
quotes. We may have to use Time magazine and other national 
publications and periodicals to drive the point home. It does not 
matter what your party affiliation is. It should not matter who you 
voted for in the last election.
  What should matter is that you are a citizen of the United States of 
America and you care about this country. So when your children and 
grandchildren ask the question, Mama, Granddaddy, Aunt, Uncle, what 
were you doing when all this was going on; were you just saying I am a 
Republican and I am voting Republican because I am a Republican? Were 
you saying I am a Democrat, I was voting for the person that ran the 
most commercials and sent me stuff through the mail and saying that I 
am the best? Oh, or I am an Independent, and you know, I just thought 
it was probably politically correct and cool for me to vote for the 
people that were in the majority so I can hopefully be on the 
prevailing side?
  One thing I can say is now the American people are saying they would 
much rather have a Democratic Congress, probably not because that they 
feel now I am so-called a Democrat. No, they see what is going on. They 
see the minimum wage not going up. They see the prices going up at the 
pump. They see what other countries are saying about us, and they see 
the lack of oversight and enforcement by this Congress.
  This Congress, the Republican majority would much rather get an 
invitation to the White House and have dinner and tea and cookies to be 
at a party of 200 people than to provide representation on behalf of 
the American people.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. You know what, it is time for Congress to stand up and 
insist on answers to hard questions.
  Let me go back to Iraq for one moment. I heard a rumor that the Iraqi

[[Page H5277]]

prime minister intends to come to Washington soon. I think we all 
deserve an answer to a question that was raised by one of our leaders 
in the Democratic Party, Jan Schakowsky, who circulated a Dear 
Colleague today.
  Maybe you have not heard this yet, but the Iraqi prime minister, 
where we have spent close to half a trillion dollars and 2,600 
Americans have died, the head of their parliament, Mahmoud al-
Mashhadani said these offensive words. He ``accused `Jews' of financing 
acts of violence in Iraq in order to discredit Islamists who control 
the parliament and government so they can install their `agents' in 
power.''
  These are his words: ``Some people say `we saw you beheading, 
kidnappings and killing. In the end we even started kidnapping women 
who are our honor.' These acts are not the work of Iraqis. I am sure 
that he who does this is a Jew and the son of a Jew. I can tell you 
about these Jewish, Israelis and Zionists who are using Iraqi money and 
oil to frustrate the Islamic movement in Iraq and come with the agent 
and cheap project.''
  This is what my friend from Iowa was earlier talking about democracy? 
What kind of democracy would tolerate and countenance that kind of 
virulent, anti-Semitic remark from the Speaker of the parliament? The 
same Iraqi government that has a bilateral military agreement with 
Iran. Does this say something about the policy of this administration 
that has enhanced the power and influence of Iran in the region, Iran 
by the way, who is the sponsor of Hamas and Hezbollah and we know and 
the whole world knows what is happening today in Lebanon and the Gaza 
strip?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So, instead of changing course and moving us 
in a new direction, the Republicans want to continue to go in the 
direction that we are continuing, that Americans are so frustrated 
with.
  This very week they are going to focus on the politics of distraction 
because, as we shine a light on what is really going on, then the 
American people would become even more frustrated than they already 
are.
  Mr. Speaker, all of our charts in the 30 Something Working Group and 
the things we discussed tonight will be up on our Web site. People can 
log on to www.HouseDemocrats.gov/30Something. We encourage the Members 
to take a look at all the things we have got up there, and I yield back 
to Mr. Meek to close us out.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you so very much. I would like to thank 
Mr. Delahunt also and all the Members of the 30 Something Working Group 
for coming together with an outstanding presentation tonight for the 
Members of the House.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Where was Mr. Ryan this evening?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I do not know. We need to see what happened to 
Mr. Ryan tonight, but I am pretty sure there is a good excuse for him 
not being here.
  Ms. Wasserman Schultz talked about a new direction for America. We 
want to make sure that health care is more affordable for all 
Americans, and we also want to make sure that we have lower gas prices, 
helping our working families, also cutting college costs and ensuring 
dignity in retirement and also requiring fiscal responsibility, pay-as-
we-go.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, we would like to thank the Democratic 
leadership for allowing us to have the time, and it was an honor to 
address the House tonight

                          ____________________