[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 99 (Tuesday, July 25, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H5848-H5851]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2005, and under a previous order

[[Page H5849]]

of the House, the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Meek) for the time remaining before midnight.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to come before the 
House again tonight, and I can tell you that we in the 30-something 
Working Group come to the floor to share not only with Members of 
Congress, Mr. Speaker, but also the American people about the plans 
that we have for the country.
  As you know, we have been sharing with the Members our concern of 
this side the aisle the Republican majority and rubber stamping the 
Republican President and all of his ideas and original thoughts that 
have put this country in an unprecedented financial situation that we 
have never been in before, especially as relates to the borrowing that 
has been going on from foreign countries within the last four years and 
continue to happen even now.
  Mr. Speaker, as you know on this side of the aisle we talk about 
taking America in a new direction, a new direction in making sure that 
American workers make a liveable wage and definitely a minimum wage, 
raising the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour from what it is now. The 
Republican majority has not done so since 1997.
  We also talk about energy innovation, making sure that we invest in 
the Midwest versus the Middle East as relates to E-85, alternative 
fuels, and other technology that can assist us in working with Detroit 
and other motor companies here in the United States and making more 
fuel efficient cars. That will happen. That is our plan on 
HouseDemocrats.gov.
  Also, we talk about making sure that folks can retire with dignity, 
protecting Social Security, and making sure that we don't privatize 
Social Security. If left up to the White House, that will happen. 
Thanks to many of the Members here on this floor that are on the 
Democratic side of the aisle that we have fought time after time again 
in some 600 to 500-plus town hall meetings around the country, helped 
turn the tide on that issue because the Republican majority was all 
set, cocked, and ready to privatize Social Security.
  Another initiative there is to make sure that veterans are honored in 
the way they should be honored. We have made a full commitment that 
those that have served this country will no longer need to reap the 
benefits of a broken promise to them, to make sure that we fulfill 
that. I think, also, for us to talk about the issue of access to 
college. We have said that we are going to cut student loans price cost 
in half and also roll back the interest rate, and make sure that we 
have tax breaks for those that wish to go to college and pay for their 
college. And, also, make sure, Mr. Speaker, that we implement the real 
security, Homeland Security here and overseas. We have our plan here. 
This is just a small pamphlet here that talks about the real security 
plan. We have put forth this plan and legislation here on the 
Democratic side of the aisle. Unfortunately, none of those bills have 
surfaced to the floor or many of them are stuck in subcommittees and 
not heard in committees and not worked in a bipartisan way. And we have 
committed to the American people that we will continue, we will promote 
bipartisanship versus not working in a bipartisan way as the Republican 
majority has decided to do so.
  I talked about energy efficiency and HouseDemocrats.gov right here 
energizing America. Talked about innovation. We want to make sure that 
we have the scientists, we have the school teachers that can teach the 
next generation, making sure that we carry out broadband opportunities 
throughout the country not just in certain parts of the country, but to 
make sure we have that in here. We want to educate 100,000 new 
scientists and engineers within the period of 4 years, and provide 
scholarships to students that qualify to work in those fields of 
innovation, making sure that we have highly qualified teachers in every 
math and science 12th grade classroom by offering tuition assistance to 
talented undergraduate students, and also paying competitive salaries 
to make sure that teachers will go into the profession and won't have 
to make a sacrifice beyond their means.
  I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, that we point these things out. 
We were in the majority; and if we have the opportunity to do so after 
November going into January, those are things that we will implement 
immediately, that we would make sure, and other initiatives.
  One other, Mr. Ryan, before I yield to you, is the issue of making 
sure that we work towards balancing the budget. The Republican majority 
talks about cutting it in half. We are the only party here in this 
Chamber that has actually balanced the budget and know how to do it. 
Pay as you go is how you do it, not borrowing, Mr. Ryan and Mr. 
Speaker, from foreign nations at the record number that the Republican 
majority has done. We have said we will do away with the rubber stamp, 
Mr. Ryan. No longer will the White House have their original thoughts 
pass through this Congress without any question, without any oversight, 
without any major questions, and very little change. Energy companies 
will not be able to come here and use the power of this House, either 
be Democrat or Republican. When we are in the majority, they will not 
use it to their benefit, we will use it to the American people's 
benefit.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I think it is important what you said. These aren't 
unreachable goals for us. These are goals that are achievable, and they 
are very achievable in the early days. Many of these advances we could 
make within the first 100 hours, Mr. Meek, within the first 100 hours. 
Within the first 3 or 4 days that we are here, the American people are 
going to know by the legislation that we pass out of this House next 
January that there is a new America, and we are going to go in a new 
and a different direction.
  And all we have to do, Mr. Speaker, is just think about what will 
happen in those first 100 hours. We pass an increase in the minimum 
wage to $7.25. How many lives will that affect around this country? Six 
or 7 million directly, and then millions of others as the bottom gets 
bumped so the middle income people will get bumped as well.
  Cutting student loans. If you have a student loan right now and your 
rate is 6 or 7 percent, parents and students, loans interest rate will 
be cut in half within the first 100 days here. That is $12 billion. So 
many people may be saying, well, are you going to get the money? We are 
going to not give the oil industry $12 billion in corporate welfare. 
The American people have a choice to make. Okay? They can reaffirm that 
legislation, they can reaffirm that position that the Republican 
Congress implemented over the last year or two and that President Bush 
affirmed by signing the bill into law and Vice President Cheney kicked 
off with his secret meeting that he had years ago where we were 
complaining and saying, well, the oil industry was in there writing the 
legislation. And everyone said, well, the Democrats, you know, they 
were in there writing the legislation and now we have $3 gas prices. 
Okay?
  So these small steps, and as you said so articulately at the wee 
hours or almost the wee hours of the morning about balancing the 
budget. We implemented what was called pay-go years ago, which means 
the government can't spend any money that it doesn't have. It can't go 
out and borrow it. You have to cut it from a program in order to get 
it, like we will do with our education. We are going to reimplement 
those rules so that we have a system in place that will restrain the 
runaway spending.

                              {time}  2340

  Now, you have many conservatives like William F. Buckley saying that 
this President is not a conservative because of the spending, the 
borrowing that has been going on from this Congress, on and on and on 
and on. We can take care of these problems very simply.
  Now, I am not saying that the structural problems are not going to be 
more difficult. Getting to a balanced budget after the Republicans have 
bumped the debt ceiling five times and are going to allow the United 
States Government to borrow more money from foreign governments than 
any President prior to President Bush put together, that is going to be 
a difficult thing to overcome, and that is going to take time. 
Reforming the government when Republicans have put in all their cronies 
that operate like they operated FEMA, it is not that they are bad 
people, but it is that power corrupts, Mr.

[[Page H5850]]

Speaker, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
  The institution is corrupted because there has been no change, and we 
when you see Newt Gingrich, the man who gave birth to the Republican 
revolution, be the most critical of what is going on here, it is not 
the Democrats saying it only. It is William F. Buckley, it is Pat 
Toomey, it is Newt Gingrich, it is Dick Armey.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is Charles Barkley.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. It is Charles Barkley. For God's sake, if you do 
not believe it, Mr. Speaker, that Newt Gingrich criticism does not hold 
water, Charles Barkley's should.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Let me just say this very quickly before I yield 
to Ms. Wasserman Schultz here.
  A Washington Post editorial on Tuesday, July 25, which is today, A14, 
this is an editorial, Mr. Speaker, and I am just going to read the 
first paragraph, maybe some of the second.
  Do large corporations need another tax break? The House of 
Representatives seems to think so. It plans this week to take up a 
measure defining when States can tax companies doing business in their 
State and make it easier for companies to avoid paying State taxes. The 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Business Activity Tax 
Simplification Act would drain $1 billion from State government 
treasuries during the first year in effect and $3 billion a year by 
2011 as corporations continue to take advantage of this situation.
  Now, it just goes on. The National Governors Association is just 
totally outraged by this, and they are saying a Federal corporate tax 
cut using State dollars, that is what they are calling this, this is 
the editorial today in the Washington Post.
  I think it is important that we point out who the Republican majority 
is fighting on behalf of. We have State governments now that are in 
deficits have to figure out how they can make up. Mr. Ryan used to be a 
State senator. Ms. Wasserman Schultz used to be a State Senator and 
State representative in the Florida legislature. I used to be a State 
senator and State representative in the Florida legislature. I think it 
is important for us to look at the States and look at what they have to 
do.
  We are both Fleming fellows, and when we were taking that fellowship 
program at the Center for Policy Alternatives in Washington, D.C., for 
State legislatures, it talked about the devolution of taxation, putting 
tax cuts here, putting it on the backs of the States. We can take out a 
credit card and we can borrow from foreign Nations; that is this 
Republican rubber stamp Congress has been doing, but in the States, Mr. 
Speaker, they have to balance their budget. And so when they balance 
the budget, what do they do? Raise tuition costs. They cut dollars 
going to local governments, and local governments then have to put a 
penny here and a penny there, and a million here and a million there on 
property taxes to be able to make it up.
  Meanwhile, we have got Members here in Congress, because special 
interests knocked on their door and said, hey, can you help us get more 
money, more subsidies that you have already given us, while we are at 
it, let us do all we can, do not worry about it, the folks back home 
will pay for it, that is why it is important, 11:30 at night we are 
back and we are making sure we share with the Members and the American 
people.
  I just wanted to read this because we are all creatures of State 
government and State service, and we know how those legislatures feel. 
This is the National Governors Association. So these are not Democratic 
governors only, not Republican governors only, not Independent 
governors only.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I am so glad that you highlighted that because 
the fiscal irresponsibility is startling, and so often it is difficult 
for us to quantify or physically represent what the impact is of the 
fiscally irresponsible decisions that are going on here, and we are not 
just making this stuff up ourselves.
  Mr. Meek is absolutely right. The three of us were State legislators. 
We worked every day to balance our State budgets. States cannot operate 
in the red like the Federal Government can. The Federal Government can 
deficit spend. That is not possible at the State level. So, when we 
pass down a tax cut, it means that there is less revenue available at 
the State level in the programs that they are counting on those Federal 
dollars to fund, and so they have the devolution of the tax cuts.

  Look, it is so often the Republicans talk about how they make these 
references to tax-and-spend liberals. Well, not only as you have talked 
about are they borrow-and-spend Republicans, but they also have refused 
to acknowledge that tax cuts are another form of spending. I mean, they 
are adopting irresponsible tax cuts for the wealthiest few. It would be 
one thing if they were passing tax cuts on to middle class working 
families. They are passing tax cuts that add to the deficit for the 
wealthiest few.
  Let us just go over some opinions and some reality that is being 
offered out there as far as what third party validators have to say 
about their irresponsible spending.
  Here is a USA Today editorial from February 21, 2006, of this year. 
The title of it is, ``Who's spending big now? The party of small 
government,'' and USA Today said, ``Tax cuts, they say, force hard 
decisions and restrain reckless spending. The last time we looked, 
though, Republicans controlled both Congress and the White House. They 
are the spenders. In fact, since they took control in 2001, they have 
increased spending by an average of nearly 7.5 percent a year, more 
than double the rate in the last 5 years of Clinton-era budgets.''
  Now, what kind of an impact are we talking about on real people? The 
tax cut reconciliation package that we passed out of this Chamber a 
couple of months ago, let us see who that helps because one would think 
that the purpose of a tax cut is to just give tax dollars back to the 
average person.
  Does the tax cut bill do that? Well, let us take a look at the 
evidence because the average amount that an American would get back, 
based on income from the 2006 tax cut bill passed by the Republicans, 
looks like this. If you make between $10,000 and $20,000 a year, you 
get enough back from that tax cut bill to buy a Slurpee. If you make 
between $40,000 and let us say $50,000 a year, you get enough back just 
about, because it is continuing to increase, to buy a gallon of gas, 
not a tank, mind you, a gallon of gas, which is about three bucks. And 
if you make more than $1 million, you did okay in the tax cut bill. You 
get enough to buy a Hummer.
  There is a slight discrepancy here. It is really pretty startling. 
Now, when we are talking about the billions, with a B, that the tax cut 
bill cost, again, it is hard to illustrate for folks what the kind of 
numbers and immensity, enormity of what we deal with here every day 
really means. So how much is a billion just so people can wrap their 
minds around it?
  Well, a billion hours ago, humans were making their first tools in 
the Stone Age. To quantify it further, a billion seconds ago, it was 
1975 and the last American troops had pulled out of Vietnam. A billion 
minutes ago, it was 104 A.D., and the Chinese had first invented paper. 
But under the Republicans, $1 billion ago was only 3 hours and 32 
minutes at the rate that the government spends money under this 
Republican leadership.
  That is just to help people understand what is really going on here, 
who is for fiscal responsibility and who is just a lot of talk.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And who has a record of it.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And who has a record of it.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We do not really have to look that far to the 1993 
operation that we had here and the Democrats who obviously were not 
perfect, but we knew how to balance budgets. We knew how to implement 
the PAYGO rules so that we were not borrowing money.
  We actually were going to pay down the debt and begin generating 
surpluses in the United States of America. Can you imagine now, since 
the Republicans have raised the debt limit five times, harking back to 
a day when we actually had surplus money and we were on track to 
actually pay off the national debt in the United States of America? 
Actually pay it off?

                              {time}  2350

  That is what we need to get back to. And it is not that difficult if 
you are

[[Page H5851]]

disciplined and you are willing to say no.
  This is like giving candy to a baby, and then the baby wants more 
candy, and they keep giving it to them. That is the oil industry. That 
is the top 1 percent. And really, quite frankly, I am even starting to 
meet people in my district who are in the top 1 percent who are saying 
I don't want any more tax cuts. I am doing fine. I have a Hummer, I 
have this, I have a nice house, I have Italian marble flown in, I am 
doing okay. But kids 2 miles away, on the other side of town, aren't 
doing well. Their parents are trying to work for minimum wage, a single 
mom with one child is living in poverty with that kid by working a 
minimum wage job. It is unacceptable.
  And when you run these huge budget deficits and you raise the debt, 
and this is the interest we are paying in the 2007 budget, $230 
billion, just on the interest on the debt. We get no value from that. 
That is not lowering tuition costs, where people would benefit, get 
educated, contribute to the economy and generate wealth. That is not 
taking care of our veterans. That is not investing in health care or 
research or alternative energy sources. There is no value from that. 
And that is the disappointing part, is that we are not getting any kind 
of benefit from that money.
  In fact, as Mr. Meek pointed out in the last hour, that money is 
going to Japan and China to pay down the money that we are borrowing, 
and paying interest on the money we are borrowing from them. So here we 
are, and this is just silly, we are borrowing money from China to give 
tax cuts to the wealthiest 1 percent, who don't need it, and to give 
$16 billion in subsidies to the oil companies, to give huge subsidies 
to the health care industry, and then the money that we borrow, China 
will charge interest on it, and then take the money they make off us 
and invest it back into their state-run factories because China is a 
Communist country.
  That is not a level playing field, to begin with, because China 
manipulates their currency, as we talked about yesterday. They do not 
enforce their intellectual property laws. They have no environmental 
laws. They have no human rights, no religious freedoms, none of the 
things we value. So they are taking this money and wiping out the 
middle class of the United States. That is not free trade. That is not 
fair trade. It is an unbalanced system.
  And we just keep feeding the beast: Right here. How much more do you 
want? How much more interest do you want?
  Be happy to yield.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, referring back to the chart, we are 
talking about $230 billion on the debt. And I am looking at education 
there on that chart, and you can stack three of those charts, the 
education dollars investment beside the debt and you still won't make 
it to the 230.
  You have the homeland security folks running around here talking 
about we have to protect the homeland on the majority side, as though, 
Mr. Speaker, that just became a problem. Folks burning all kind of 
Federal jet fuel running down to the border talking about how we are 
going to get tough. Sending National Guard troops from throughout the 
States when we already have an overextended military and saying we 
would like to do more in homeland security. But as it relates to the 
Republican majority plan, the investment dollars are not there.
  Look at veterans, the blue over here, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, which is 
quite interesting. Goodness, what we are paying down on the debt 
because of the Republican out-of-control spending on the majority side, 
the rubber stamp Congress, doing everything the President says to do 
for the billionaires and millionaires and all of the people that Mr. 
Ryan pointed out, who are not outside rallying in front of the Capitol 
saying we need more money, doing what I just pointed out here in The 
Washington Post editorial just today, just stacking on top, piling on, 
putting more cream, and whip cream, and whipping it on up and throwing 
eight or nine cherries on top of this eight-floor cake they are giving 
to the special interests. Looking at what the veterans are getting. 
Nothing. Little or no investment. Well under $50 billion.
  I am looking at this chart, and it is well under $30 billion. So when 
you look at it as it relates to the investment, it just doesn't pay 
off.
  Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And just so we can segue into how we would do 
it differently, what we would do is we would go back to the days of 
PAYGO rules. We would make sure that we have some fiscal discipline 
that we impose on ourselves, just like the State legislatures that we 
came from, just like they do, which is that we are not going to deficit 
spend. Just like families who struggle every day to not spend more 
money than they take in; to not put all their wants and desires on a 
credit card and live on credit card debt. We need to operate this 
budget like families feel compelled to operate their family budgets. We 
are simply not doing that.
  What we would do, and we have offered amendments time and again, Mr. 
Ryan, through Mr. Spratt, our lead Democrat on the House Budget 
Committee. He has offered amendment after amendment that has been 
rejected unanimously by the Republicans again and again opposing 
reestablishing PAYGO.
  PAYGO is tough. It forces some difficult choices. But it would make 
sure that we could really cut the deficit and go back to the surpluses 
that we had under the Clinton administration. I mean, that is the 
direction that we need to move in. If we continue down this path, if we 
continue in the direction that the Republicans have taken us, we will 
continue to spiral downward and pass the deficit and the debt onto 
future generations.
  Really, we only have a couple of minutes, and what I didn't get to 
mention at the end of our last hour was what Speaker Gingrich had said. 
So if you would just before we end yield back to me, I kind of want to 
throw that out there for everyone's final thoughts. Be happy to yield.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Well, one other thing that we have forgotten to 
mention tonight, and I know the clock is ticking, but with all these 
other costs, we keep forgetting to mention interest rates for people 
who are going out and trying to get a car or a house and the 
significant increase over the past year or so in interest rates. So you 
have the health care, you have the tuition costs, you have the gas, 
natural and what you get at the pump, and you throw in there if you are 
trying to get a new house or car and what your interest rates are now, 
or they would have been because everybody is going out trying to borrow 
money, you run into a difficult situation.
  Again, by balancing the budget, as President Clinton and the 1993 
Democratic Congress proved, by balancing that budget, you will in turn 
reduce interest rates and then let the private sector go out and borrow 
money and make things happen in the market.
  Www.housedemocrats.gov/30something. All of our charts and everything 
are available, including the article that voted Ms. Wasserman Schultz 
one of the 50 most beautiful people on Capitol Hill.
  With that, I yield to Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Well, just to throw this out, I want to end by 
telling you what Speaker Gingrich said at the end of that panel. He 
said, ``While waiting for voter backlash to clean up Congress, he had 
some pithy advice for lawmakers, who in the current wave of scandal and 
personal enrichment on Capitol Hill have confused the public interest 
with their personal interest, said the former Speaker, my answer to 
them is: Go home.''
  Good advice.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it was an honor once again to 
address the House.

                          ____________________