[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 99 (Tuesday, July 25, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H5837-H5843]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Foxx). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) is
recognized for 60 minutes.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to kick
off the 30-something Working Group, and my good friend Mr. Meek from
Florida, who was delayed for a minute, will be here any second to talk
about taking America in a new direction.
We have heard a lot tonight, and I want to agree with my colleagues
on one thing that they said earlier, just a few minutes ago, that the
American people know how to spend their money better than the United
States Congress, and I agree with that.
If you look at where this Congress has given the money, $16 billion
in subsidies to the oil companies, hundreds of thousands of dollars in
tax returns, tax breaks for millionaires, Madam Speaker, I agree that
the American people would not do that, and that is why it is time to
take the country in a new direction.
[[Page H5838]]
I want to, before we get too revved up here, thank our good friend
from Massachusetts for carrying the ball last night when the younger
and the weaker, the fatigued other Members of the 30-something did not
have the stamina to come here at 11:40 last night, and you showed up,
and I yield to my friend.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, well, I am glad to see that you have
recovered and that Mr. Meek has made it. I knew that both of you were
tired. You worked hard yesterday, but I hope that in the future you can
just reach down, grab a little extra, and you know, be here when it
counts. I have been very impressed with your perseverance, your
performance over the course of the past year and a half; but remember,
it has to be consistent. It has to be consistent. It cannot be just
about talk. It has to be actions.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Delahunt, and I know
you are all excited about your birthday that took place last week, and
it is well noted not only amongst the Members but also in the
Congressional Record. We notice that you are eligible for Medicare. We
are excited about that. Hopefully, having you as Medicare recipient
now, folks on Medicare will have a stronger voice in Congress because
you can actually understand what they are going through.
It has been 3 years and 2 months we have been doing 30-something. We
are just so glad that we can have you as the something of the 30-
something which I will be joining you in September.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I look forward to seeing you graduate to a different
level, and I am sure that you will be able to be here for the last hour
once you hit that magic mark in September.
Like I was saying, we hear a lot of rhetoric on the floor here, and
we just heard an hour's worth of good talk, good talk, and you know, I
welcome the fact that it would appear, if you listen carefully, that
the Republican majority is going to get serious about fiscal
responsibility.
I would only note that they are coming very late to the issue,
because, I know neither of you were here in 1994, but in 1994, this
branch, Madam Speaker, was taken over. The Republicans assumed
majority. So let us see, from 1994 to 2006, that is 12 years, that is
12 years and now we are faced with runaway deficits, external debt.
We just recently received a report from the Comptroller General of
the United States that informed the American people that despite the
fact that they have already spent 30 billion of their dollars in Iraq,
that the bill is coming for another $50 billion to reconstruct Iraq.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. What is that $50 billion going to be spent on?
Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, I think a lot of it is going to line the pockets
of corrupt officials because that is what Mr. Walker, who is the
Comptroller General of the United States, found. He expressed concern
about the black market in the sale of oil.
We all remember the words of Paul Wolfowitz who was the Under
Secretary of Defense that the revenues from the oil reserves of Iraq
would pay for its reconstruction. False.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Again, this is the 30-something Hour, Madam
Speaker. This is the 30-something Hour, so we are talking about issues
that are going to face generations to come, but I want to agree again
with the statement that the previous speakers made, which we do not
like to refer to, but they said that the American people know how to
spend their own money better than the United States Congress, and I am
all in on that statement.
Mr. DELAHUNT. But, Madam Speaker, the Republican majority in this
House is spending the American people's money not in America, but in
Iraq.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And not spending it in a manner which the United
States citizens, from Florida and Ohio or Massachusetts or wherever
they are from, would completely and totally and wholly disagree with
where the Republican Congress is spending their money. They are
building hospitals in Iraq. They are building schools in Iraq. They are
building clinics in Iraq. They are building roads in Iraq, in a
fruitless attempt to try to win over the Iraqi people.
Mr. DELAHUNT. And where are they getting the money?
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We are borrowing the money from China, Japan, and
OPEC countries in order to fund the war and to fund tax cuts that are
going predominantly to people who make more than $1 million a year.
The average American person, Madam Speaker, does not agree with that
policy. They wholly reject that policy because it makes no sense.
People in Youngstown, Ohio, work very hard, and they meet their
obligations for the Federal Government. They pay their taxes, and to
watch the United States Congress, Republican-controlled, take their
hard-earned money and build roads and bridges in an elective war, with
no plan, no exit strategy, no idea of how to execute it, and take their
money and build roads and bridges and hospitals over there. I yield to
my friend.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I just want to make sure that just because they
say it, Madam Speaker, the Republican majority does not necessarily
mean that it is true. You have heard me say this before. The good thing
about the 30-something Working Group is that we come to the floor and
not with rhetoric, not with a Democratic message that is not factual.
We do not do that. People are looking for straightforward government,
making sure that we level with the American people, not level with
Democrats, not level with Republicans and Independents, but level with
the American people.
The American people want us to work in a bipartisan way, but only the
majority can allow that to happen. We have legislation that is moving
through the process that Democratic Members are not even noticed of the
conference committees that are going on, some of the decisions that are
being made, and we have Republican majority Members that come here and
say, well, the Democrats, how can they say it when they have been in
control.
Let me just say this real quick. I tell you they did not share in the
hour before this hour, they did not share how the Republican majority
has made history in all the wrong ways. On $1.05 trillion borrowed in 4
years, 2001 to 2005, from not only President Bush but the Republican
majority that dethroned 42 Presidents, 224 years of history, $1.01
trillion.
Mr. Ryan mentioned who we are borrowing from. Japan, $682.8 billion.
The American people had nothing to do with that. Republican majority,
rubber-stamp Congress, had everything to do with that. China, at $249.8
billion; UK, $223.2 billion; Caribbean, $115.3 billion; Taiwan and on
and on and on.
What they also did not say is how the Republican majority has given
themselves a pay increase along with all Members of Congress,
meanwhile, Madam Speaker, not addressing the minimum-wage workers in
America since 1997. So I would not come to the floor with a straight
face talking about the American people can handle their dollars that we
give them or they can handle the dollars because they can handle it
best.
Well, guess what, I think that is a true statement because the bottom
line is the Republican majority has shown that they cannot. Just real
quick, I want to make sure that we spell this out.
In 1998, Members of Congress, $3,100 raise; minimum-wage workers,
zero; 2000, Members of Congress, $4,600 raise; minimum wage, zero;
2001, $3,800 increase, cost of living Members of Congress; minimum
wage, zero; 2002, zero minimum wage; $4,900 real money increase for
Members of Congress thanks to the Republican majority; 2003, $4,700;
minimum-wage workers, zero; $3,400, 2004; minimum-wage workers, zero;
2005, $4,000; minimum-wage, zero; 2006, $3,100; minimum-wage workers,
zero. And the Republican leadership has said it is just not going to
happen. They did not want to share that with the American people. That
is why the 30-something Working Group, why we do that.
The good thing about this report is that we are saying on this side
of the aisle we will not vote for an increase in Members' pay if we do
not vote for an increase in the minimum wage. That will mean an
increase in individuals that are making above the minimum wage because
the American workers should be making more than the CEOs that are
retiring with big-time retirement packages.
{time} 2140
I wish I had my chart here.
[[Page H5839]]
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Yes, I do have my chart. So that we don't have
CEOs of major oil companies with $398 million retirement packages. A
retirement package. And a $2 million tax break, thanks to the
Republican majority.
So, Mr. Ryan, when folks come to the floor and start talking about,
and Mr. Delahunt, what the American people can do, tell you what, why
don't we play fair? We have control of the minimum wage, Mr. Delahunt,
we can raise the minimum wage.
On this side of the aisle we said, number one, we will be raising the
minimum wage. Okay, not raising the salaries for Members of Congress.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Within the first 100 hours.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Within the first 100 hours we are willing to
move forward, and we have said it, in our new direction for America. We
have said we are going to cut student loan costs in half, Madam
Speaker, more than the Republican majority that is in control now.
We have said that we are going to move in the direction of true
energy innovation, investing in the Midwest versus the Middle East,
here in America with E-85 ethanol. Republican majority has the House
now. They are not doing it.
We have said that we are going to pay as we go and have real fiscal
responsibility, because we are the only party in this Chamber, Mr.
Delahunt, that can say we have actually balanced the budget. We have
balanced the budget, with surpluses as far as the eye can see. The
Republican majority takes over and we are borrowing from countries that
we have issues with, like China, Japan, and the U.K. Well, not the
U.K., but other countries that are questionable. OPEC nations. And I
don't even want to go through that list.
So when we start talking about these things, gentlemen, and when they
come to the floor, and this is a free country and what a democracy, but
meanwhile, Mr. Delahunt, we have veterans that have fought, some are at
Arlington Cemetery for paying the ultimate price for us to salute one
flag. We look at the services and the things that we have promised
veterans, and this is not a Democrat or Republican or Independent or
nonvoter issue, this is an American issue. To see veterans having to
wait 2 and 3 months to see a specialist at a VA hospital, whether it be
a foot doctor, an eye doctor, or just getting a simple exam, is
unacceptable, especially when the Republican majority is giving tax
breaks in a record breaking way to individuals that are not even asking
for them, and when billionaires have $398 million retirement packages,
I think it is important for us to come to the floor and share this with
the American people.
It is not only important, it is our obligation. So that the reason
why, Mr. Delahunt, as I land, that it is important, no matter how late,
if it is 11:40 at night or it is a few minutes before 10 p.m.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Or if it is at 11:30.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Or 11:30.
Mr. DELAHUNT. And you are by yourself.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. We have worked all day, and some Members of
Congress, Madam Speaker, are home enjoying themselves, relaxing, what
have you, some are working in their offices right now answering their
e-mails or regular mail, that we come to the floor, take away from what
some may say is our personal time after we finish our regular business,
that we come to the floor to show how we have the will and the desire
to put America in a new direction and not only fight for working class
folks, but making sure that those that pay their price to this country,
which are a number of Americans but especially our veterans, will be
treated with dignity and respect.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. If the gentleman will yield.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Yes, sir, I would yield, Mr. Ryan.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Because I think it is so important that the
American people and the Members who are watching this here tonight
understand that things will be completely different when the Democrats
take over in January; that we will, within the first, not 100 days,
Madam Speaker, Mr. Delahunt, but within the first 100 hours out of this
House we will pass a minimum wage increase that will get us in a few
years to $7.50 an hour; that we will, in the first 100 hours, cut
student loan interest rates in half for parents and for students, which
will save families $5,000 over the course of the loan.
We are not rocket scientists. We are not saying we have some
extravagant plan that is very elaborate and very complex. These are
basic fundamental things. We are going to strip the oil companies of
the $16 billion that they get in subsidies, and we are going to put
that towards education and innovation and alternative energy sources.
And all these things we need to do, Mr. Delahunt, in order for us to be
competitive as a country.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. One second, Mr. Ryan. I just want to make sure
we are accurate. It is $7.25, not $7.50, sir, that we want to move the
minimum wage. I want to make sure that we are accurate. I know you
mistakenly said $7.50. I would like to do $7.50, but our plan is $7.25,
just for the record. Because we believe in making sure that even when
we make a mistake to level with the American people.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Reclaiming my time, I yield to my friend from
Massachusetts.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I appreciate the gentleman yielding his time, and I
want to compliment my friend from Florida, Mr. Meek, because he just
did something that is rare in Washington. He acknowledged that there
was an error; that there was a mistake. Because you will never hear
that on the floor of this House.
But the American people, I would submit, want their elected officials
to acknowledge when a policy has failed and come up with another idea
and be forthright about it. I mean, when I hear about all of the
problems that haven't been solved because of a minority party, I begin
to wonder, is there an alternative reality there?
As I said earlier, Madam Speaker, the Republican majority has owned
this Chamber for 12 years. Where have you been? Now you are talking
about fiscal responsibility. And the reason you are talking about it is
because there is 100 days to an election. That is why you are talking
about it. And you talk about the direction of the country. You know, we
talk about a new direction and a change in direction, Madam Speaker,
because there is no alternative.
If we continue to go and continue to chart the same course that the
administration and the Republican House and the Republican Senate have
charted for the United States, we will be in serious trouble. And let
me just give you four statistics:
Since the Republicans have controlled both branches of Congress in
the last 5 years, and President Bush was inaugurated in 2001, college
tuition has increased by 40 percent, health care costs to the American
people have increased by 55 percent, and gas prices have increased by
79 percent.
But Ms. Wasserman Schultz, you know what has gone down in this
country? Madam Speaker, you know what has declined in this country?
Median household income. A family of four in this country, since the
Republicans have governed here in this institution for 5 years, the
average American family has experienced a decline of 4 percent in their
income. On top of all the escalating costs that are eating away at
their security, everyone in America knows that retirement security no
longer exists. They know that their health care plan can be canceled at
any time. They know that they won't be able to afford to send their
children to college because they can't afford the loans. I mean, the
list goes on and on. We have got to change the direction of this
country.
With that, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you so much to my good friend, Mr.
Delahunt, and I am glad to be here with my three good friends from the
30-something Working Group.
You know, the answer to the question that is on everybody's mind,
which is why do they keep moving us in this direction? Well, if you
actually shine a light or a magnifying glass on what is really going on
here, then it would be clear that their priorities are all wrong. So
instead, what they do is they engage in the politics of distraction,
like they did all during last week.
[[Page H5840]]
If you recall last week, let us take a walk down memory lane here,
did we focus on the priorities of the American people, like gas prices
and health care and the true direction that we should be going in in
the war in Iraq? Were those at the top of the Republican agenda last
week?
Mr. DELAHUNT. We talked about stem cell research.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We talked about trying to override,
unsuccessfully, a veto on stem cell research. We did that and the
Pledge of Allegiance bill, and we did gay marriage. We engaged in the
politics of distraction, because the only way that the Republican
leadership here can take the focus off of all the horrendously bad
things that they are doing on the priorities of the American people is
by focusing on that.
I had a social studies text book with me last week, I am not sure if
we still have it, but last week I really wanted to bring a social
studies textbook to the floor because essentially there is no point in
using it any more in our public high schools. At the end of the day,
the Republican leadership here has thrown out the concept of how a bill
becomes a law.
That Pledge of Allegiance bill we brought here last week? I sit on
the House Judiciary Committee. That bill was defeated in committee, and
yet we still saw it on this floor. When we teach high school civics, we
teach that a bill has to go through the committee process, it has to
garner a majority of the committee members to move on then to either
the next committee or to the next point of reference in the legislative
process.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And the bill stripped the courts of hearing a case
that the courts actually ruled in favor of what they wanted.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Exactly. Let us focus on what the bill itself
actually did, which also throws out the whole system of checks and
balances and who is responsible for what according to the way the
Founding Fathers set it up.
That bill actually said, like you said, Mr. Ryan, that specifically
because the Republican leadership here does not agree with a specific
court decision, they decided to pass a bill stripping the courts of the
ability to decide that question. Now, whether or not you agree that
``under God'' as part of the Pledge of Allegiance is or is not
constitutional, that is not relevant. We certainly shouldn't be passing
legislation here that was defeated in committee; that couldn't even
garner enough support on the Republican side to pass out of committee,
and they stack the committees in their favor, to strip the courts of
the ability to decide a question that the Republicans don't agree with.
But, you know, the rubber stamps, the rubber stamps in this body just
went ahead and approved it anyway. Break it out, Mr. Meek.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, you are exactly right. It
wasn't that they didn't like the answer, because it went to the appeals
court and the court ended up ruling in their favor, that ``under God''
should stay in the Pledge. But they didn't like the question, which is
so typical down here, Mr. Delahunt.
They don't like the questions that people are asking, whether it is
at President Bush's press conferences or having a hearing and asking
questions about what is going on in Iraq or Katrina or with gas prices
or what the oil companies are doing. When you have an elected body in a
democracy that stops liking the questions, we are losing the basic
fundamental aspect.
Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman would yield.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Be happy to yield.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Just stop for one moment. The war in Afghanistan and
Iraq has been going on for years. Every day we pick up a newspaper and
learn about the loss of American lives.
{time} 2200
Every day we hear about the rampant corruption that goes on in Iraq.
Every day we hear about the escalating costs of the military deployment
in Iraq. And now we know from the Comptroller General, not from the
administration, that the $30 billion that we have already spent in Iraq
is not enough to rebuild the country. It is going to cost us $50
billion more. And you know what, Madam Speaker? We ought to be having a
hearing on a weekly basis, every committee, every single committee who
has some jurisdiction, and yet nothing happens.
Why are we losing ground in Afghanistan? Why? But we do not dare ask
the question.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Will the gentleman from Ohio yield?
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I yield to the gentlewoman.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. Because the Prime
Minister of Iraq is here in Washington, today met with the President,
and the whole notion of stubbornness and refusal to acknowledge that
they are wrong and refusal to change course is so evident in the
decision-making that goes on with this administration as far as the
direction that we are going in Iraq.
June 13, when the President went on that surprise visit to Iraq and
praised up and down the Prime Minister's plan for ending the bloody
violence in Baghdad, came back and said, The Prime Minister of Iraq has
a plan and I am supportive of it.
Well, today they finally acknowledged that it is not working and it
is not effective and not that, yes, we are going to change course. It
is ``changing the plan is under consideration.''
Well, because we have had a shift in focus, in terms of the media's
attention, to the crisis in the Middle East as it relates to Hezbollah,
its attacks on Israel, it has deflected attention away from the fact
that the actual number of deaths and bombings have increased in Iraq in
the last month.
Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman from Ohio would continue to yield for
one moment, we all know that there is much public discourse about
whether the violence in Iraq is of such a magnitude that it should be
called a civil war. There are no figures that are ever released by the
administration, but the United Nations just released a report in the
last several days that indicated in the months of May and June, 6,000
Iraqis were killed because of political violence. Will somebody please
explain to me, is that enough to make it a civil war? Of course it is a
civil war going on there, Madam Speaker. Please stop using semantics
with something that is so serious that the American people deserve to
be continually informed.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, in this talk today, as we watched
the press conference, the Iraqis have army and police force in one
region that is in southern Iraq, where nobody lives. They have got
control of it, and the Prime Minister is here with the President
saying, See, we are making progress.
You are not making progress. Electricity, water, utilities are all at
prewar levels. Below prewar levels.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And instead, Mr. Ryan, we are focusing on the
Pledge of Allegiance and gay marriage. And what it really comes down
to, do you think that the mom whose baby is in Iraq fighting on behalf
of our country is worrying about whether one of her children is going
to be able to say ``under God'' in the pledge at school, or is she more
worried that her baby over in Iraq is going to come back to her? What
do you think is a higher priority for her?
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Or that the baby, in the country that this baby was
born into, is going to owe $11 trillion to China and Japan and OPEC
countries.
This is bogus. This Congress is bogus, Madam Speaker. This is the
biggest illusion, smoke and mirrors nonsense. This is disrespecting the
American people in the past couple of weeks. Totally has disrespected
and insulted the intelligence of the American people.
I yield to my friend.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. How about this? I mean, let us go
beyond just the mom or dad of a young man or woman fighting in Iraq.
How about the father of four who leaves for work every day, and do you
think he is worrying about whether someone who is gay is going to be
able to get married or not, or is my Member of Congress voting to amend
the Constitution to deal with that, or do you think that it is more
likely that he is pissed that he is having to pay $3.01 a gallon to
fill up his tank and it is going to cost him like $55 and he is
wondering whether he is going to be able to get to work in the morning?
Where on the list of priorities, Mr. Delahunt, do you think that is
for the
[[Page H5841]]
Joe and Jane average constituents that we represent?
Mr. DELAHUNT. Could I add to that?
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Of course.
Mr. DELAHUNT. What do you think an American mother feels as she sees
this administration embroil us, embroil us, in wars, sectarian strife
all over the world? Does she become concerned that at some point in
time her child will be compelled to serve in the military?
I found it fascinating reading some articles in the Weekly Standard,
which is, if you will, the gospel of the neoconservative movement,
suggesting now is the time to bomb or strike Iran. Just another war.
Just another war. And, of course, the original frontier in terms of the
war on terrorism, Madam Speaker, was Afghanistan. And you know what is
happening in Afghanistan? The Taliban is back, the group that gave safe
haven to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, because of the distraction that
was foisted on the American people by this administration with the
complicity of this Congress and putting us into the quagmire of Iraq.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Delahunt, do you know how many troops we
have in Afghanistan versus how many we have in Iraq?
Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes, I do.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Twenty-two thousand in Afghanistan versus
130,000 in Iraq.
Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman from Ohio will continue to yield, do
you know who really said it the best? The NATO commander who was taking
over the NATO force in Afghanistan. He happens to be a British general
by the name of David Richards. And he said this: You know, we were
distracted. We took our eye off the prize, and that is why we have the
problems that we have now. We became too focused on Iraq, and we forgot
about Afghanistan, and some would have us already hitting into Iran.
When does it end, Mr. Meek? When does it end?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Delahunt, I just wanted to say really
quickly that it is important that we point out, you have got one, two,
three, and I am four Members of Congress. We have friends on the
majority side of the aisle. We see them every day. We have lunch
together, and we go to the dining room here in the Capitol. We know one
another's families. We travel together to foreign countries. We visit
military bases here in the United States and abroad. Madam Speaker,
this is not personal. This is business. And the bottom line is that
this Congress is making history in all the wrong ways. We have a
rubber-stamp Congress, as Ms. Wasserman Schultz pointed out earlier,
that has rubber-stamped everything that the administration has put
forth to this Congress, and now we are in a situation where the
American people do not see the same vision that the Republican majority
has.
Now, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, before we leave here tonight, you must
talk about immigration.
{time} 2210
You must talk about immigration in a way that shows that the
Republican majority and the Bush White House is not leveling with the
American people.
Mr. Delahunt, you pointed out, Mr. Ryan was mentioning 750 earlier. I
am looking here at our plan, it says 725. He was in the middle of a
speech, and I wanted to make sure that we were accurate for the record.
I wanted to make sure we were leveling with the American people. I want
to make sure that Members watching in their offices or watching at home
are saying, even on the majority side, the reason why I can't be upset
with those four Members on the floor right now is because they speak
the truth; not fiction, not what we think will sound good. We are
sharing the facts with the American people and with the Members of
Congress, Madam Speaker.
So that is the reason why Members of the majority side, which is the
Republican majority that is in control, we have situations where States
are suing the Federal Government on education, lack of funding. We have
local communities trying to figure out how they are going to stand up
to unfunded mandates handed down from this Congress.
We have minimum wage workers that haven't received a raise since
1997. Meanwhile, Members of Congress have received $3,100, $4,900,
$3,200, in some cases $2,900, $4,100, and a proposed $3,100 this year.
Meanwhile, minimum wage workers are sitting waiting on some leadership
and representation in Congress.
As we raise their minimum wage, what we have pledged to do in New
Direction for America, Members, people that are making $8 and $9 an
hour, employers are going to have to say, we have to give them also a
raise, because the minimum wage has risen. So the American everyday
worker not making minimum wage will do better under our plan.
Saying that, Mr. Delahunt, that is the reason why we should feel very
motivated and empowered to be here any time we get an opportunity to
come to the floor.
So I am excited about the fact that we are armed with the facts. I am
glad, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, the facts she had she got from third party
validators, not what we came up with, to share with Members and the
American people, because we don't want members of the rubber-stamp
Republican majority to go home and say ``we didn't quite understand
that,'' or ``it was the Democrats.'' We have to make it abundantly
clear that the Republicans are in control.
Mr. Ryan, as I close, I just want to break it down like this: On the
Democratic side, we don't have the opportunity to bring a bill to the
floor. We are not chairmen or chairwomen of committees. We can't order
up a congressional hearing and subpoena Halliburton and other companies
that obviously have done things that have reached the level of, some
may say, the criminal level. We can't do that.
We can't have inquiries of Federal agencies. Our good friend from
Tennessee has legislation that is talking about agencies coming to the
Congress and asking them, what happened to $28 million that we gave you
last year? They say I don't know. They just write it off. It is the
taxpayers' money.
Mr. DELAHUNT. What happened to the $89 billion in Iraq.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. What happened to the $89 billion in Iraq. This
will never surface, Madam Speaker, unless we get rid of the rubber-
stamp Congress and we move towards a Congress that is willing to follow
the Constitution of the United States to make sure that the American
taxpayer dollars have the proper oversight and that we spend it in a
way that is responsible, not just giving away tax breaks to
millionaires and special interests when the Republican majority feels
like doing it.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. There is just no accountability. There are
just words. There is no action to back up the words.
You know, if you listen to the Republicans on immigration, as Mr.
Meek referenced, you would think that they were the hardest line, the
hardest core, that border security was the highest priority to them.
But if you closely examine the facts, you don't have to even closely
examine the facts, you just scratch the surface a little bit. Take a
look at what the real record of this hard line Republican congressional
leadership is when it comes to border security. Let's show the American
people who is for immigration reform and who is just kidding.
These are third-party validators here. Here is border security by the
numbers. We took a look and found that as it relates to the average
number of new Border Patrol agents that are added each year, because
the Republicans talk a good game about how many Border Patrol agents
they want to add, well, under the Clinton administration, from 1993 to
2000, the average number per year added was 642. You take a look how
many were added, Border Patrol agents per year, under the Bush
administration from 2001 to 2005, it was 411.
That is not just a couple, that is not a handful, that is a big
difference. 642 minus 411, I am not a mathematician, whatever it is,
someone subtract it for me.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. 231.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. A 231 difference. That is a big difference.
Maybe that is an anomaly. Maybe that is just isolated.
No, keep going. Let's look at another indicator of who is for border
security and who is just kidding. The INS fines for immigration
enforcement, making sure that we actually crack down on illegal
immigrants: 1999, 417. The actual
[[Page H5842]]
statistic is in 1999 the United States initiated fines against 417
companies. In 2004, it initiated fines against three companies. Who was
President in 1999? President Clinton. A Democrat was President. Who was
President in 2004? President Bush.
We are talking about going after the firms, the businesses, that
aggressively hire illegal immigrants. But maybe that was an isolated
incident. Maybe it was just those two indicators that were off the
charts, different than the policy that the Republicans talk about.
Keep going. Let's look at the Bush administration's record on
pursuing immigration fraud cases. In 1995, under President Clinton's
administration, 6,455 immigration fraud cases were prosecuted. In 2003,
under President Bush, 1,389 cases were prosecuted.
At the end of the day, I think the American people will want to
examine the facts, and not just listen to the words.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I think that is the perfect example.
Those are facts. We did not make it up. Those are facts on how the
Clinton administration versus the Bush administration handled illegal
immigration.
But look, if you are just the average Joe and you are sitting in the
cheap seats watching politics in America, that is not all you see, is
the failure to address the illegal immigration problem.
You have watched over the past 5 years, Katrina, in which our FEMA,
the Republican appointed members of the emergency management system
here in the United States of America, had five or six days, knowing
that a hurricane was coming to the Gulf States, and we got the kind of
response that we got go.
You look at Iraq. You look at not when the statues fell, but look
afterwards, and you see it has been an utter and complete failure.
Utilities and all the electricity, all at below pre-war levels. Our
army right now, two-thirds of our army is not combat ready. Two-thirds.
That is atrocious.
And when you look at lack of investment in alternative energies, and
the median wage is down 4 percent, all of the increases in college
tuition, all these things, if you are just watching this from afar and
you see millionaires getting tax breaks and average Americans
struggling to get ahead and falling behind every single paycheck, you
have to at some point say, aren't you taking the country in the wrong
direction? Aren't you taking us down the wrong road?
Real quick, Mr. Delahunt, whether it is domestic policy or foreign
policy, you look at what is happening, and there is a severe disconnect
between where the American people want to be and where the
administration and President Bush's Congress is taking us.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I really found it interesting. I ran across this
article today in the Washington Post, and much of what we have said is
repeated here. The Iraq war didn't work and we didn't prepare for
peace. The response to Hurricane Katrina was a monumental failure of
government. You don't go to Congress to become the party that you have
been fighting for 40 years, the spending, the finger pointing, not
getting bills passed. Just shut up and get something done.
Now, that was the quotes of a candidate, but it was a Republican
candidate. It was a Republican candidate. I think that tells you
something about going in the wrong direction, Madam Speaker.
I find it interesting that the frustration level is so profound now
that the former Speaker of the House that sat in the Chair that you,
Madam Speaker, are currently occupying, summed it up like this: ``We
just ought to start firing everyone.''
{time} 2220
That is what he said. And yet we continue to go in the wrong
direction. We continue to hear that, you know, if the Democrats would
only help us. I mean, we do not even get invited to committee hearings.
They don't tell us where a hearing is if it is a significant hearing,
and I am referring to, specifically, I am referring specifically to the
Medicare prescription drug legislation that was passed several years
ago.
We couldn't find the room where they were meeting to discuss an issue
of such great consequence. I mean, it is unbelievable.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I enjoyed watching Mr. Gingrich over the past year
or so be critical. But the funny part is that this is the
neoconservative agenda we are living with now. It has been implemented.
There is really nowhere else to go. They have given tax cuts to the
wealthy. They have appointed all of their cronies. They control the
House, the Senate, the White House, the Supreme Court. They control
every major branch of government, they have all of their appointees in
all of the right positions through the executive branch, and it is not
working. They have implemented the neoconservative foreign policy
agenda.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Do you know what we have accomplished with that? We
have strengthened Iran.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We have increased the number of terrorists.
Mr. DELAHUNT. We have increased the number of terrorists.
What I find interesting, tomorrow in this Chamber the Prime Minister
of the newly elected government will be addressing the body. And this
is what he has to say. He is referring to Israel's action after
Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and began shelling northern
Israel, but he is referring to Israel: ``I condemn those aggressions
and call on the Arab League's foreign ministers meeting in Cairo to
take quick action to stop these aggressions. We call on the world to
take quick stands to stop Israeli aggression.''
No reference at all to the actions of Hezbollah. None whatsoever. And
the Speaker of the House in Iraq, Madam Speaker, again the exact
position that Mr. Hastert holds in this House, uttered anti-Semitic
remarks that every American would deplore and find unacceptable. May I
quote what he had to say. He is referring to the terrorist acts against
other Iraqis. And this is what he claimed, and I am quoting him:
``These acts are not the work of Iraqis. I am sure that he who does
this is a Jew, and a 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. No one deserves to rule Iraq other than
Islamists.''
That same speaker said this, Madam Speaker: ``The United States'
occupation is butcher's work under the slogan of democracy and human
rights and justice.''
And understand that there has been a bilateral military cooperation
agreement signed by Iraq with Iran. What have we done? We have got over
2,500 Americans killed. Tens of thousands seriously wounded. And is
this what we expect? No. It is not what we expect. It is certainly not
what we deserve. And now Iran has become the hegemon in the Middle
East.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you for sharing that, because that is so
very, very important. It is going to be the issue of tomorrow and
today. I mean, when we get into after the 12 o'clock hour.
Mr. Ryan, I think it was important, and Mr. Delahunt brought up some
comments that the past Speaker made, the person that gave birth to the
Republican ``revolution,'' the Contract on America, I mean for America,
and what has happened to all of that, the broken promise to America
from the Republican majority.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz pointed out the fact that the Republican
majority talked about that they are tough on immigration, but at the
same time they have been in control double digit years, and now all of
a sudden they notice that we have an immigration border protection
problem.
And folks are burning Federal jet fuel flying down to the border for
photo shots; this, that and the other that we are doing something about
it. Bill Buckley, I don't need to talk about his credentials, because
here in this article from Connecticut.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. That is William F. Buckley.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. William F. Buckley. It is an article that Bush
is not a true conservative when it comes down to spending. As you know,
he has dethroned a number of individuals. And he is noted in this
article, which was dated July 22, 2006 as the Father of Moderate
Conservatism, talking about William F. Buckley.
{time} 2225
He is saying, if you had a European prime minister who experienced
what we have experienced, it would be expected that he would retire or
resign.
[[Page H5843]]
This is what Buckley said about the President of the United States. He
is allowed to do that because this rubber-stamp Republican Congress
allows him to do it.
I would like to yield to Ms. Wasserman Schultz, and hopefully Ms.
Wasserman Schultz will yield to Mr. Delahunt and then yield to you, to
talk about, Madam Speaker, what Newt Gingrich, the Speaker of the House
of Representatives, former Speaker, is saying about this Congress.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz, if you will indulge me, please.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I would be glad to.
In fact, what is really interesting about these comments from Speaker
Gingrich was that he was sitting on a panel of the American Enterprise
Institute, a conservative think tank, with former Speaker Foley, the
Democratic Speaker who Gingrich succeeded, and they were literally
trading head nods back and forth from what one another was saying. And
one of the things that Speaker Gingrich commented on was as follows:
``Congress has to think about how fundamentally wrong the current
system is. When facing crises at home and abroad,'' he said, ``it's
important to have an informed, independent legislative branch coming to
grips with this reality, and not sitting around waiting for
presidential leadership.'' And he said so much more than that. Mr.
Delahunt, I would yield to you. And he went on, on the same day and in
the same panel discussion.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, I think what he said in a quote that appears
here, really, is the summation, if you will, of his disgust with what
is occurring in the American political system. He described it as a
broken system. These are his words, Newt Gingrich's words:
``The correct answer,'' Gingrich said, and he is speaking to the
remedy, ``is for the American people to just start firing people.''
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Delahunt, before you yield to Mr. Ryan, he
actually went on and I have the rest of his comments from that point.
He actually went on and suggested that Congress rediscover its power to
supervise the administration. And he said, ``The failure to do
effective aggressive oversight disserves the country and disserves the
President.''
I mean, disserves the country and disserves the President. We are not
talking about the namby pamby liberals that the Republican leadership
always refers to. We are talking about the former Speaker of this House
and the leader of the Republican Revolution. This is damning criticism.
Damning criticism. Mr. Ryan.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I want to thank Mr. Meek for the opportunity to
speak on this point, which Mr. Gingrich stated back in March that they,
the Republican majority, are seen by the country as being in charge of
a government that can't function.
When you look at what he is talking about, and what even Mr. Gingrich
stated the other day on Meet the Press, is that the institutions
haven't kept up with the times. And the majority has had now 12 years
to try to reform these institutions, and they have made them worse, not
better. Because, in the example of FEMA where they appointed horse
attorneys, equestrian attorneys to run FEMA, or all the graft and
patronage that is going on in Iraq, Mr. Delahunt, which you know about
better than us and spoke very eloquently about at 11:30 last night by
yourself, all of these issues add up.
When you have higher tuition costs, the paycheck you get doesn't buy
as much, when you have higher health care costs, when you are worried
about your pension, when you have the auto industry collapsing before
its very eyes, you have a low minimum wage that hasn't been raised
since 1997, you are unable to govern, as Mr. Gingrich said.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, Mr. Delahunt, Ms. Wasserman Schultz,
this is what Republicans are saying. I mean, making history in all the
wrong ways.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz and I will be back at 11:32 for the last hour
here tonight. We hope that you gentlemen will be able to join us.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We want to congratulate our 30-something. Ms.
Wasserman Schultz here was rated ``One of the Most Beautiful People on
Capitol Hill.'' And that is quite an honor. It is an honor for us to be
here with you. Kendrick and I and Mr. Delahunt didn't even make the
list. I don't even think we were nominated. But we have all have roles
to play, and unfortunately, Ms. Wasserman Schultz covers them all.
WWW.HouseDemocrats.gov/30-Something. All the charts you saw here
tonight, and we could maybe get a copy of the Hill newspaper.
Mr. DELAHUNT. That should be put on the Web site. Congresswoman
Wasserman Schultz.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And I thank the leader and our leadership, Steny
Hoyer and Jim Clyburn and John Larson for the opportunity to be here.
____________________