[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 20]
[House]
[Pages 27820-27826]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP: TAX CUTS AND THE BUDGET

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) is recognized for 
60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be on 
the House floor here tonight with my good friend from Florida (Mr. 
Meek) to continue our discussion that we have been having with the 
American people and with Members of Congress from all over the country 
the past few months and even few years.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, the Republican-led Congress has once again taken 
a step in a direction that I think moved it and this Congress away from 
mainstream America.
  Today, the majority has passed another wealthy-focused tax cut in 
which $60 billion, up to $80 billion, over the next 10 years will be 
spent subsidizing the wealth of the people in this country who make 
millions and billions of dollars, an average tax break of $32,000 to 
wealthy millionaires who have already received more than $103,000 in 
tax cuts. More than half the taxpayers making less than $100,000 a year 
will receive less than $30 back from this tax cut. This is a tax cut 
that has clearly been focused on the wealthy Americans.
  And coincidentally enough, a couple of weeks ago, our friends, our 
good friends on the Republican side, have said that they passed a 
budget deficit reduction package which made cuts of $50 billion; and 
then they passed a tax cut which took away $80 billion, which is a 
negative $30 billion deficit in the hole. Only in Washington is that 
deficit reduction.
  And before we get going here, I want to just share and read into the 
Record, if my friend does not mind, a letter that was sent, and I know 
I received one of these and a statement on behalf of several religious 
organizations. Bishop Frank Griswold of the Episcopal, Anglican, Church 
USA, together with leaders of four other mainline denominations, has 
called on the United States Congress to defeat the 2006 Federal budget 
once and for all because it betrays the poor.
  And I just want to say to Bishop Griswold and the Anglican Church in 
the United States of America and the other denominations that are 
there, Dr. Kirkpatrick of the Presbyterian Church; Reverend Thomas, 
general minister and president of the United Church of Christ; Mr. 
James Winkler, general secretary, Board of Church and Society for the 
United Methodist Church, thank you for speaking out against this.
  Because in this day and age, morality and values have been such a 
strong topic of conversation in the United States, I want to commend 
these folks for stepping out front and saying that this budget and tax 
cuts for the rich while we are cutting food stamps; free and reduced 
lunch; child support enforcement payments; money for college, Pell 
grants; cutting those programs and then giving tax cuts to the 
wealthiest people in the country is something that goes in direct 
contradiction to what they are trying to teach.
  And if I could just take a minute or two to read some of these 
comments into the Record, if my friend does not mind:
  The church leaders declare: ``At each stage of the complicated 
legislative process, we have viewed the budget through the lens of 
faith and our values and found it wanting. Now we ask that it be 
defeated once and for all.'
  ``Despite the exposure of poverty in the U.S. revealed in the 
aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the statement says, `Congress 
continues to make decisions which benefit the rich but are paid for by 
the poor and most vulnerable in our land.'
  ``The leaders criticized the budget's potential compromises which 
would cut funding for food stamps, heating subsidies, Medicaid, and 
child support enforcement.
  ``They will seek to find compromise where there should be no 
compromise, that is, with the lives and future of the poor of this 
country.'
  ``They asked that Congress reflect during the season of Advent, 
reject the budget and join with the President to craft a budget that 
will reflect `our Nation's historic concern for justice and the least 
among us.'''
  This is not Tim Ryan. This is not Kendrick Meek. This is not the 30-
something Working Group. This is a group of bishops and church leaders 
all over the country who have stepped out front and stated that cutting 
taxes for the wealthiest people in our country and doing it on the 
backs of the poorest among us is not consistent with the values that 
they teach in their churches every week.
  Here is Cal Thomas. Cal Thomas is one of the most conservative 
columnists. I do not even know if he is a Republican, but he is a 
conservative columnist with the Washington Times. When we are finding 
all this money to balance our budget, Cal Thomas says: ``Here's a 
suggestion: Don't start with the poor. Start with the rich.''
  We passed an energy bill several months ago out of this Chamber that 
had $16 billion in subsidies for the energy companies and the oil 
companies, the most profitable industries today. This Congress took 
your tax money that you send to Washington and gave it to the oil 
companies to basically subsidize and increase their profits. There is 
something wrong with that.
  And the 30-Something Working Group is here and we will have charts 
later, talking about some of our ideas that we have and some of the 
ideas that Leader Pelosi has and the Democratic Party has and what 
direction we want to move this country in. And we believe that what is 
going on here is not only contrary to what we believe in, but also 
contrary to what the American people believe in. We should now be 
making investments in education. I mean, why would we give millionaires 
a tax cut and not have enough money to actually heat homes in the 
wealthiest country in the entire world?
  And I know my friend from Florida wants to get in here and talk a 
little bit. But just today, this just happened, we were cutting taxes 
to the tune of $80 billion over the next 10 years. At the same time a 
few weeks ago, we were cutting food stamps and increasing the cost of 
college tuition.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek).
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I am so glad that Mr. Ryan set the 
pace here and he laid the foundation for continuing our discussion as 
it relates to responsibility. I can tell the Members the ideas that we 
had here on this floor as it relates to sensible tax policy that will 
not drive us further into debt.
  What happened today on the floor, not because of our votes, but 
because of the majority vote, the Republican majority, they took this 
country further into debt.

                              {time}  1700

  They made it so we are going to have to change our board here, 
because we are going to be borrowing more money from foreign countries, 
Mr. Speaker, because of the deficit.
  I will say this again. President Bush, with the Republican majority, 
I guarantee you he could not do it by himself without the Republican 
majority here in this House, has borrowed a record-breaking, mind-
boggling $1.05 trillion in the last 4 years, more than 42 Presidents 
prior to the President taking office.
  42 Presidents, Republican and Democrat. Some of the gentlemen here on 
this board were once members of the Whig Party. But I can tell you they 
were only able to achieve borrowing from foreign nations $1.01 trillion 
over

[[Page 27821]]

224 years. This is the same majority and the same President that says 
that we know exactly what we are doing as it relates to putting this 
country on the right track.
  Well, I can tell you, Members of the Congress, that I am very, very 
concerned. We used to have a discussion about future generations and 
putting the burden on their back. We are putting the burden on this 
generation's back. It is going to cost more for kids to go to school. 
It is going to cost more for parents to send their children to school. 
It is going to cost more for those young Americans that would like to 
educate themselves to be able to save enough money to be able to go to 
college, because we cut it by $14.3 billion.
  So I think it is important that we take all of this into account. But 
what I would also like to say, Mr. Speaker, in my opening comments, I 
cannot help but commend our Democratic leader for her privileged 
resolution here today, outlining a culture of corruption and cronyism 
and incompetence in Washington, D.C.
  I think it is important that we say that out loud so that individuals 
understand that we must not only police ourselves in how we conduct 
business, but what we are doing when we have investigations, 
unprecedented here in this Congress and investigations over in the 
White House, dealing with national security breaches. It is important 
that we make sure that the American people know exactly what is going 
on and that we take appropriate action in a bipartisan way.
  Right now we are not taking any action. There is discussion about 
action. And I just want to commend the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz) and the Speaker about having ethics training here in 
the House. I just wanted to say that. That is something. That is 
something. That is better than what we had yesterday.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Do you need any ethics training? You and I 
served in the Florida house of representatives together, in the Florida 
senate together, now we serve in the United States Congress. You know, 
the ethics training I got began in kindergarten when my mom and dad 
taught me right from wrong.
  I have had ethics training my entire life. It is not understandable 
to me why we would need and why there are some Members in this body 
that appear to need it.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Well, let me just say this, and I say this is 
something that I have read in the paper today, and I am pretty sure 
some sort of memo is going to come out on it: when you are in a culture 
of corruption and cronyism and incompetence, you have to start, I 
guess, somewhere.
  Apparently, Federal prosecutors and other investigating bodies here 
in this Capital City have taken steps to try to help those of us here 
in Washington, D.C. that need help as it relates to that kind of 
training. But let me just make this point. Do we need ethics training? 
I think we need to be reminded of that, because as I said last night, 
Mr. Speaker, 33 percent of Americans feel that we are doing the right 
thing here in Washington, D.C.
  I saw a poll today that said 28 percent of Americans agree with what 
we are doing.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I want to ask you another question. Do you 
need ethics training to tell you that you should not take bribes? Do 
you need ethics training that tells you that you should not circumvent 
State law and provide fund-raising assistance and direct contributions 
to candidates for State office?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I just want to say that it is alleged activity.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I was just asking a question.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. It is important. Anytime anyone can get 
information between right and wrong, I think it is good. I think it is 
good. I think it is good that we have this discussion. But we need 
action.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) had a colloquy with a 
Member on the other side talking about the war in Iraq and the kind of 
action that we have to take as it relates to the corruption and 
cronyism and incompetence in contracting.
  He said that it was important, and he yielded to this distinguished 
Member of this House. And he said, yes, we should have a discussion on 
it. Mr. Delahunt reclaimed his time and said, no, we should not have 
discussion on it, we should have action on it, because that is what the 
American people want.
  And I think it is important that we get to the bottom of it. I think 
it is important. We have to. We must get to the bottom of it. It is 
important that we start taking steps in a bipartisan way.
  Now, I am going to tell you that the Democratic leader brought up a 
privileged resolution today that basically talked about the spirit of 
the rules of the House being violated, talked about the fact that we 
had issues here of former Members that served in this Congress and the 
previous Congress, in the 108th Congress, that were a part of not only 
questionable, illegal activities.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Allegedly.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. No. Some have left and have pled. Forget about a 
trial. They have said, oh, I am guilty. So that is not an issue. Some 
of it is alleged, ongoing now; but some of it is actually proven. So 
that means that we have a lot of work to do in a bipartisan way. And I 
am going to be honest.
  Like it or not, Mr. Speaker, I am glad that this Speaker took some 
steps as it relates to talking about the issue that we do have a 
problem and we need to do something about it. Is it almost like many 
people that are struggling with substance abuse, they have to first say 
they have a problem for them to even get on the road of recovery.
  I talked last night about the fact that how can you operate a 
government in a fiscal way, in a responsible way, in a way that 
Democrats, Republicans, independents and other party members would like 
for their government to function in this democracy; how can you do it 
under a culture of corruption, cronyism and incompetence. You just 
cannot do it.
  This is not the 30-something Working Group report, this is not your 
report, it is not my report. It is what the American people know, and 
that is what people are reporting about, and we have all of these 
investigations going on.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Let us break this down. If people are saying that 
Members are doing things or former Members, I want to correct myself, 
former Members were doing things that would cost the government money 
or would spend money that otherwise would not be spent, that is a 
problem.
  And I think we have to look no further than the Medicare prescription 
drug bill that came out of this Congress. We were told the night at 3 
in the morning, when we were voting, that this bill was going to cost 
$400 billion. We find out later that the actual cost of the bill is 
$700 billion, $300 billion more; and there is nothing in the bill to 
reduce the cost of prescription drugs.
  The Democrats, I know you remember this, the Democrats wanted to put 
a provision in the bill that would have allowed the Secretary of Health 
and Human Services to negotiate down the drug prices on behalf of the 
Medicare recipients, so the Secretary of HHS would go to Merck and 
Pfizer and some of these other big drug companies and say, you know, if 
you want the Medicare prescription drug contract, we need to sit down 
and talk price.
  And not only did our friends on the Republican side not put that 
provision in, put the Democratic provision in there, they actual 
explicitly put in the bill that the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services is not allowed to negotiate down the drug prices.
  The Democrats also with what we thought was a $400 billion Medicare 
prescription drug bill that ended up being, months and months later the 
truth came out, over a $700 billion bill, we also wanted to allow, the 
Democratic Caucus wanted to put in a provision that would allow for 
reimportation from Canada and some of the other G-7 countries to drive 
down the costs of prescription drugs here in the United States, to 
basically free-trade pharmaceuticals with countries who have the proper 
health and safety

[[Page 27822]]

standards like we have here in the United States of America. That was 
not allowed in the bill, Mr. Speaker.
  So two basic provisions that would have saved the taxpayer billions 
of dollars were not put in because it would have maybe hurt the profits 
of the drug companies. And the drug companies raised millions and 
millions and millions of dollars for our friends on the Republican 
side. Now the average American is left to put two and two together.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I ask the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan), who 
would be happy tonight, based on the passage of the bill that passed 
today? Who would be happy?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. There are a lot of people who make more than a 
million dollars a year or a few hundred thousand dollars a year that 
are going to be very happy with what we did here today.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. You mean what the majority did?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. What the Republican Party did today was make a lot 
of rich people very happy. That is the answer.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I would also add corporations that have 
influence and power. What is it, K Street?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Shakedown Street.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I thought so.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I got this chart here. This is the end result. This 
blue is the Clinton-era budget deficits that by 1997 started turning 
into surpluses; and by the time President Clinton left, $128 billion 
surplus. And that was all based on the 1993 vote that was passed, the 
budget in 1993 without one Republican vote.
  Now, these are just the facts. I am not making this up. This is not a 
partisan statement; it is just the facts.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I want to go further. It is from the 
Congressional Budget Office. I mean, I just want to make sure that is 
clear.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. This is the Congressional Budget Office. $128 
billion surplus in 2001 due to the fiscal policies, the fiscal 
restraint, the fiscal discipline that the Democratic Party had at that 
point.
  But check out when Mr. Bush and the Republican House and the 
Republican Senate started getting in charge here, we have a $323 
billion budget deficit going into 2006, and we are borrowing the money 
from foreign interests.
  We are borrowing the money to pay for these deficits from the 
Chinese, the Japanese, and the Saudi Arabians to plug this deficit 
hole. And we are trying, Democrats are trying, to say, why would you 
give $80 billion in tax cuts to the wealthiest people in the country 
when we are already running a $323 billion deficit in 2006, we already 
have borrowed $1 trillion from foreign interests in the last 4 years, 
more than any President has borrowed from foreign interests in the past 
224 years?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. $1.05 trillion.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. 1.05 trillion we have borrowed from foreign 
interests in the last 4 years.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. When you say foreign interests, who are they?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. The Chinese Government. The Japanese Government. 
The House of Saud in Saudi Arabia. I mean, we are borrowing money from 
China. I do not even want to get into the whole manufacturing and the 
rise of China and the competition that we have right now.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. And the U.S. workers are training people to 
replace them.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. It is a real issue. So we are borrowing money from 
a country that we are in direct competition with. They are taking 
billions and billions of dollars of investment that is coming from the 
United States and going into China, whether it is Delphi that has filed 
bankruptcy, General Motors which has significant investment in China 
now, Ford just announced that they are going to cut 30,000 jobs in 10 
plants in the United States. And we are borrowing money from the 
country that they are making the investment in?
  Now, China is not in a bad position right now. Check it out. I mean, 
they are getting investments from Delphi, General Motors, General 
Electric and Ford and a lot of the automakers; and at the same time 
they are loaning us money that we are paying them interest on.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. A piece of the American pie.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. A big piece of the American pie. And I think we 
were talking the other day, it is over $300 billion a year this country 
pays just in interest payments on the debt.
  The average American, the average Member of Congress is not paying 
attention to our $8 trillion debt that we have. That means $27,000 per 
American citizen. So if a baby is born today, I had a nephew that was 
born a couple of months ago, 9 weeks ago tomorrow. That young man, 
Nicholas John Ryan, owes $27,000 to his government, and this young man 
is 9 weeks old.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) and the gentlewoman from 
Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Delahunt), they each owe $27,000 to the United States Government 
because of the reckless spending that we have. So, you know, we have 
really got to get our house in order. We need to balance the budget.
  Ladies and gentlemen, Members of Congress, my friends from Florida, 
you just cannot do it by giving away $80 billion to the wealthiest 
people in the country in the form of a tax cut.

                              {time}  1715

  We also have two wars going on.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. That is what I was going to say. I think it is 
important we talk about this all the time. We work on this as a working 
group. I think it is important that the American people understand that 
we have a war going on, we have a war going on, that we still have 
people that are delusional as it relates to our commitment, our 
financial commitments, Mr. Speaker, to what we have to do. And I think 
it is important that people understand, Mr. Speaker, that if we are 
going to talk about the strategy in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is 
important that we have a serious discussion on how we are going to be 
fiscally responsible in making sure that we do not have more and more 
and more money being spent in an irresponsible way and giving it away.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield back my time to the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) as I have to step off 
the floor for a moment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Poe). The gentleman yields back his 
time.
  Under the Speaker's announced policy of January 4, 2005, the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) is recognized for the 
remainder of the minority leader's hour.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, just to piggyback on what the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) was saying, when we are talking about 
the costs and the impact of the decisions that the Republican 
leadership is making in this country, let me just highlight for a few 
minutes exactly what this tax cut package that passed off this floor 
today is really going to mean for Americans.
  We have given yet another round of tax breaks to our wealthiest 
Americans. Now, when you hear the term ``wealthiest Americans,'' there 
is a lot of different ways that people might think of that. What we are 
talking about when we are referring to the wealthiest Americans is the 
top two-tenths of 1 percent of the wealthiest Americans in this 
country, people who are making more than a million dollars a year.
  The Republican bill that we have passed off this floor today will 
raise taxes on more than 17 million middle class families by as much as 
$3,640, while millionaires would get tax cuts of as much as $32,000. 
These tax breaks for the wealthy few will be paid for directly through 
the spending cuts that we passed a couple of weeks ago in the Budget 
Reconciliation Act that we just adopted.
  We are talking about budget cuts that impact people who need child 
support enforcement. We are talking about food stamps that provide 
school lunch funding for thousands and thousands of children across 
this country, both

[[Page 27823]]

school lunch and school breakfast funding. We are talking about cuts in 
financial aid. We are talking about cuts to programs for senior 
citizens, for children, for rural families.
  The Republican leadership here, Mr. Speaker, has pushed a tax bill 
and adopted a tax bill on this floor that will increase the deficit by 
$81 billion, $81 billion because when I do the math, and I spend quite 
a bit of time doing first grade math with my first graders at home, I 
see this as pretty simple math. If you have $50 billion in budget cuts 
and you try to call the Budget Reconciliation Act, the Budget Deficit 
Reduction Act, which is an obvious misnomer when you hear what I am 
going to describe next; and then 2 weeks later you pass a tax cut 
package that adds $70 billion in tax cuts, well, the difference is 
another $20 billion on the deficit.
  I mean, that is just unbelievable that the Republican leadership here 
would have the nerve to call this bill from 2 weeks ago a Budget 
Deficit Reduction Act. And to add insult to injury, the kind of money 
that we are talking about, the kind of fiscal impact that we are 
talking about, really boils down to a direct impact on individual 
Americans. Every newborn that is born as I am speaking owes $27,000 
that adds up to the $8 trillion deficit that we have in this country.
  We have difference in terms of our views on what is considered fiscal 
responsibility. Obviously, there are differences of opinion when it 
comes to the approach that Democrats and Republicans take. But layered 
on top of those differences is the culture of corruption and cronyism 
that exists in this country and in this Congress and in this 
administration. Just over the last several months we have had details 
of that. I mean, we have layer upon layer of cronyism, of corruption 
and of incompetence. To me it smacks of incompetence when you continue 
to pass tax cuts and budget cuts and balloon the deficit bigger and 
bigger and bigger. I mean, we are not going in the right direction 
here. There should not be any delusions that we have reduced the 
deficit in any action we have taken in the last several weeks.
  Then you add that to the fact that we had a nightmarish, disastrous 
response to Hurricane Katrina. The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina was 
clearly the result of indifference. There was an opportunity in the 
previous fiscal year before Katrina hit the Gulf Coast region to put 
the money and keep the money in the budget, to fund the levees in New 
Orleans and the administration took it out. They took that funding out. 
So where it was possible to stave off the disaster that struck New 
Orleans, instead the administration put tax breaks for the wealthy as a 
higher priority.
  Let us move on to, we have covered incompetence briefly, now we can 
talk about cronyism. The cronyism that exists in this administration is 
just absolutely rampant. It runs deep. It is not occasional. It is not 
an anomaly. You have example after example.
  Let us take Michael Brown, for example, who was formerly the director 
of FEMA. Not only was he absolutely unqualified for the job and had 
little to no emergency preparedness or disaster response training or 
professional experience before taking the job at FEMA and being offered 
the job at FEMA, what his specific qualifications were prior to 
becoming FEMA director was to be head of the Arabian, excuse me. Let us 
give credit where credit is due. He was head of a national 
organization. The National Arabian Horse Association.
  I am not sure what type of emergencies or disasters occur with 
Arabian horses, but there does not seem to be much of a nexus between 
that type of experience and the type of experience that you need to run 
the largest disaster response and preparedness organization in the 
country.
  An organization where the director is expected after a disaster to 
have the command of every agency at his fingertips, to be able to 
direct each of those agencies in a particular direction to respond as 
quickly as possible. Yet, not even that was possible after Katrina 
because, unfortunately, FEMA has been brought under the Department of 
Homeland Security and is no longer an independent agency directly 
responsible to the President with an independent secretary.
  Now we have so many layers of bureaucracy in the Department of 
Homeland Security that by the time the FEMA director's request gets all 
the way up the food chain, many lives have been harmed, a lot more 
damage has occurred. And if there is any organization that needs to be 
lean and clean and responsive in this government, it is FEMA. And we 
have, unfortunately, hamstrung FEMA and FEMA's director to such a 
degree that we have seen the results after Katrina to that disaster and 
the disaster response.
  We saw the nightmare traffic jams when the folks in Texas and the 
western part of the gulf coast tried to get out of their homes and 
community on the roads to get away from Rita potentially. And then in 
my home State, when Wilma hit 2 months after Katrina, one would think 
that after Katrina hit that maybe a couple of lessons would have been 
learned and we would not be repeating the same mistakes. Yet, even 
today we still have victims of Wilma in South Florida who are without 
housing, who are not even in temporary housing, who are still in 
shelters. That is the type of person we put in charge of an agency that 
has that much responsibility.
  Let us look at Julie Myers as we continue on with the subject of 
cronyism. Julie Myers was nominated to be Assistant Secretary of the 
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. The 
responsibilities in that job were that she would have been in charge of 
the second largest investigative agency in the Federal Government with 
over 20,000 employees, including 6,000 investigators and an annual 
budget of more than $4 billion.
  The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE, is comprised of 
five divisions that form a 21st century law enforcement agency. It is 
an agency that my office at home contacts every day to help people with 
their immigration problems.
  Her resume includes that she is currently a special assistant 
handling personnel issues for President Bush. She was, of course, 
recently married to the chief of staff to Michael Chertoff, Secretary 
Chertoff of the Department of Homeland Security. She is the niece of 
General Richard Myers, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I am 
not sure what qualifications she has for a job of that size and scope. 
Her only previous experience was that of being a special assistant 
handling personnel issues. I do not really see the nexus or the 
connection from that job to the job that she was nominated for as the 
head of an immigration division.
  Right now, basically, even Republican Senator Voinovich told Ms. 
Myers at her nomination hearing that he would really like to have 
Secretary Chertoff spend some time with the committee, telling them 
personally why he felt Ms. Myers was qualified for the job because he 
said, based on your resume, I do not think you are.
  Let us move on to David Safavian, if we are going to continue the 
examples of the culture of corruption and cronyism here. Let us 
continue in the cronyism theme. David Safavian was the administrator of 
the Office of Federal Procurement Policy in OMB. His responsibilities 
included being in charge of a $300 billion budget and ensuring fair 
competition for Federal contracts. His job also included setting the 
procurement policies for the Office of Management and Budget, including 
funding for Hurricane Katrina efforts.
  Let us detail some of his experience. He is currently out on bail 
after being arrested and charged with obstructing the criminal 
investigation into indicted Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff. He is 
also married to Jennifer Safavian, who is also a person who has 
numerous ties and connections to Republican leadership. That also 
includes lobbying partnerships with the likes of Grover Norquist and 
Jack Abramoff.
  I could go on, Mr. Speaker, but that is just a smattering of examples 
of people who were appointed or recruited or nominated for major 
positions within the administration with not so major qualifications.

[[Page 27824]]

  Now, let us talk about the culture of corruption that has existed. I 
can tell you that as a freshman Member of this body, and as someone who 
served in the Florida legislature for 12 years, I can tell you that I 
am not naive. We are obviously a representative body and there are 
going to be instances of ethical lapses. We are all human and that does 
occur, especially in a representative body the size of this one. But 
when you get to the size and scope and proportion of ethical lapses and 
of corrupt activity or at least people who have been accused of that 
corrupt activity, it becomes deeply, deeply troubling.
  We have a former Member, only recently former as of last week, who 
admitted guilt to bribery. I mean, this is a person who was a ranking 
member on an appropriations subcommittee in this body, and someone who 
absolutely violated the trust of his constituents and the trust of the 
American people.
  I know we have other Members in this Chamber, in this body, who have 
been accused of ethical wrongdoing, and there have been quite a few of 
those who have been accused of ethical wrongdoing in the administration 
as well.
  The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that America deserves better. We can 
work together and give America a better government, a government that 
stands up for those who cannot stand up for themselves. A government 
who understands that we are not all of the problem and we can be part 
of the solution to the problems in America and to the problems in 
people's individual lives.

                              {time}  1730

  That is unfortunately not what it appears are the priorities that are 
shared by the Republican leadership in this institution or in the 
administration.
  We have got to move this country in a new direction, Mr. Speaker. We 
have an agenda on the Democratic side that would do just that. I want 
to spend a few minutes talking about that agenda.
  This is the 30-something Working Group, and in the 30-something 
Working Group, one of the things that we try to do is help our 
generation understand. What happens with our generation is that often 
they feel less in touch with the inner workings of government. They do 
not really see, for example, how Social Security reform could 
potentially alter their future. The 30-something Working Group comes to 
this floor each night and tries to help demystify a lot of the 
government programs that maybe our generation does not feel the impact 
of directly.
  I want to talk about Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi's innovation 
agenda, which is the innovation agenda of the Democratic Party and the 
Democratic Caucus. She rolled that out just last week, and it is an 
agenda that appeals and speaks directly to our generation.
  We have a challenge today in this country that in years past 
countries around the world would follow the United States in terms of 
our innovation and our future technological advances. One has only to 
look back to when I was 3 years old in 1969 and we put the first man on 
the Moon. That was something at the time that no one thought possible. 
I heard my parents and I heard Leader Pelosi talk about it just the 
other morning where it was so foreign a concept, something completely 
unfathomable to my parents' generation, not something that they ever 
thought possible; and yet when President Kennedy talked about it, I 
think it was accomplished in 9 years.
  America was previously a country that the rest of the world looked to 
as innovators; and now because of the direction that this Republican 
leadership and the Republican administration have taken us in, the 
anvil of Washington has stagnated our ability to be innovators.
  What we have done is we took a process and went outside of 
Washington. We went to the technological centers across the country and 
sat with CEOs and the leaders of technological companies across the 
country and asked them what they think. Let me just give you a few 
examples of the type of leadership and the differences and the changes 
that have occurred.
  America now ranks 16th in the world in broadband penetration. That is 
the difference between when I was a child in 1969 and where we are 
today. America ranks 16th in broadband penetration, broadband 
subscribers per 100 inhabitants on January 1, 2005. You look at the 
countries, we are not at the top. Korea is at the top. Hong Kong and 
China are at the top. Iceland is doing better than we are in terms of 
broadband penetration. What happened to America leading the way on 
innovation? We are 16th in penetration.
  We have an agenda that would change that. We have an agenda that 
would put broadband access in every household in 5 years. That is a 
goal that we absolutely should strive for. We have got to make sure 
that our generation raises their kids, that we raise our kids to be 
first, to have the attitude that it is America first. That is how it 
was when we were kids when President Kennedy was in office, and that is 
how it should be again.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, it was interesting talking to Leader 
Pelosi the other day, and some of her conversations that she had were 
about she and our leadership team actually went out and engaged the 
technology community and sought their recommendations. They were saying 
we need to do this in the next 2 years. Our friends on the other side 
do not have a plan at all. We have a plan to do it in the next 5 years, 
and many people in the high-tech community are saying we need it done 
in the next year or two years.
  This is something that we cannot wait on, and I think the difference 
here is that we are showing very specific proposals here, very specific 
goals that need to be achieved in order for America to push forward in 
the 21st century. It does not happen with the same old rhetoric of the 
supply side voodoo economics. It is just not working.
  Last night, you know how you get on your computer and you just start 
floating around, and God knows where you end up. We got out of here 
late, and I could not fall asleep. So I got on my computer and I was 
floating around, and I got into some space stuff from the space 
program. Then I made my way to the space speech that President Kennedy 
gave in Houston in the early 1960s; and I tell you what, they have the 
audio version which is very cool. If any American wants to think about 
where we should be and the kind of leadership that they deserve from 
us, they just need to read that speech or listen to that speech. That 
was about just taking things to the next level.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We should put it on our Web site.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We should put it on our Web site, and I think we 
will have to do that.
  It was about here is the vision, here is why and here is why it is 
our call at this moment in history; and I think when you talk about 
something like broadband, you talk about alternative energy sources, 
you talk about research and development, whether it is into the human 
mind or the human genome or whatever it may be. It is about setting 
these lofty goals for our country, not to go shopping, which is the 
great call from this administration.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, the other place that we are 
lagging behind is global education standards. I was shocked to learn 
that the difference in the number of students who graduate with an 
engineering degree from nation to nation is staggering.
  Here is another place, sadly, where we are no longer first. China is 
first. They are first by miles. They graduated 600,000 students with an 
engineering degree this year; 350,000 with engineering degree in India; 
and 70,000 in the United States.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. A lot of ours are foreign born who will return to 
probably one of those two countries.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. There is no question, and I can tell you that 
if you even examine further the details of those numbers, what is even 
sadder is how few women and young women are graduating with those kinds 
of degrees. We need to make sure that we grow our scientists of the 
future and that we encourage our kids who are

[[Page 27825]]

going through the universities, actually really we have to start in 
elementary school, to encourage them to pursue science and math 
pathways so that ultimately they get involved in the science fairs and 
enter their projects in the science fairs and work their way through so 
that they know they want to go to a university and get an engineering 
degree.
  We have a plan that will take us in that direction. We have a plan 
that will add 100,000 new scientists, mathematicians and engineers to 
America's workforce in the next 4 years, and we can do that using our 
ability to provide scholarships and other financial assistance and work 
with the private sector to create opportunities for students who go to 
college to achieve that goal; but that is something that government has 
to initiate. That is not something that can completely be incubated in 
the private sector and occur on its own. Those things do not occur in a 
vacuum.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Think of the ripple effect. Throughout our society, 
from wages to new inventions, new patents, the whole 9 yards, the 
ripple effect throughout the community.
  We have a business incubator in one of our towns, in Youngstown that 
is, whether it is computers or science or whatever, creating jobs in 
our urban centers; and you begin to put together a program where you 
have research, you have engineering graduates, you have business 
incubators, you have the arts.
  One of the things that I want to add to that, when I was in China, I 
went for 2 weeks in August. The two things that the Chinese were saying 
that American engineers have that those 600,000 do not have, they 
really do not have the skills that we have. We are more creative and we 
work in teams better, and they were saying that they just cannot teach 
the Chinese how to do these things, no matter how hard they try. One 
party system, Communist system, everything is very narrow. You always 
look to the hierarchy. It is just very narrow thinking.
  It occurred to me that the very two things, in addition to not 
creating enough engineers, but the very two things that give us our 
competitive advantage around the globe are the first two things that we 
usually cut in our schools, the arts programs and the team programs, 
the pay-to-play, where kids get boxed out. It is basketball season now 
for high schools, 12 varsity kids, 12 junior varsity kids and a 
freshman team, and that is it. No one else gets to play. We need to 
have an agenda that promotes teamwork, the arts, these things that 
create our advantage.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, the things that make kids grow up 
into whole people. What happens now is because we are inadequately 
funding education, our classrooms in most of the major urban population 
centers and now even in some places that would not be considered so 
urban, the classrooms are so crowded they are bursting at the seams. 
They are having to use the art rooms and the band room and the music 
rooms for classroom space.
  So as a result, electives are so reduced or the funding is cut for 
them. So you are graduating kids who know how to take tests. They are 
test takers, and those are not the kind of skills that small businesses 
are looking for when they are sitting across the desk after a kid has 
graduated from high school or even college. I can tell you, because I 
taught at the college level for several years both at the university 
and community college level, you would not believe the writing skills 
or lack of writing skills that someone whose whole educational career 
has been structured towards taking tests, what those writing skills 
look like.
  We are not graduating whole, well-balanced kids who have critical 
thinking skills and the creativity that those kinds of classes and 
elective courses help to shape them into adults that will be able to 
work in groups and dream big dreams and make us the innovators and that 
have been the tradition of innovation that Americans have always led 
the way on. It is just not that way anymore, and we have got to get 
back in that direction.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We are in the process, I think everyone would 
agree, of creating a new economy. No one really knows what direction it 
is going to go in; but we know some of the fundamentals, like 
broadband, are a very important part of that. So why not make it 
accessible to everybody, just like we did with roads? That was a huge 
subsidy for the auto industry for years. I mean, where is the auto 
industry, where are the car manufacturers without roads? Where are the 
great railroad companies without the railroad lines?
  These are the kinds of things that I think we need to do. Water 
lines, sewer lines were the key in the industrial age; and in the high-
tech Information Age, that is the road and the bridge.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is it right there, and you cannot do 
those things when you are hampered every day by having to answer 
questions from reporters and from your constituents on your ethical 
lapses and on the corruption accusations and on cronyism. We all know 
that those things are distracting. When you have to concentrate all of 
your energy and effort and attention on corruption and cronyism and 
your incompetence, how are you going to be able to focus on innovation? 
How are you going to be able to focus on the future?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I think that has been the focus of our friends on 
the other side. They have been so focused on taking care of their 
friends in particular industries that we have gotten away from the 
mission here, which is to strengthen the United States of America in a 
$323 billion budget deficit that the Congressional Budget Office, a 
nonpartisan organization, is saying we are going to have. That is less 
money that we are able to invest in the country, and a stronger America 
begins right here at home.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Absolutely. We are not addressing the high 
cost of gasoline. We have a plan that would make us energy independent 
within 10 years. We have got to make sure we start innovating in that 
direction. We have got to make sure we stop relying solely on foreign 
oil. We have investments that we can make in research and development 
so that we can expand our ability to generate alternative energy 
sources. We have to help small businesses. We have to make sure that 
small business can thrive. They cannot thrive with upwards of 15 
percent increases in their health insurance costs every year. We have 
got to make sure we have access to health care in this country.
  That is the direction the Democrats would take this country and break 
the gridlock that we seem to be mired in, in which every single day 
there is another accusation of corruption. Every single day there is 
another example of a person who was selected or nominated or chosen for 
a job in the administration who is wholly unqualified for the breadth 
and scope of experience that that person would need to do that job 
effectively. What happens? They make horrible mistakes, and that is the 
next day's headlines, not the headlines that we had in 1969 that 
America was first to land a man on the Moon.

                              {time}  1745

  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We have a limited amount of time, I think we 
have about 5 minutes left, Mr. Ryan, but I am really excited about this 
innovation agenda. I just wish that we were able to bring the other 
side of the aisle to the table.
  One of the things that has been frustrating to me as a freshman, and 
I have only been here 11 months now, but I came from a legislature that 
had its share of partisanship. But we had partisanship on 10 or 12 
issues, maybe. You would have 10 or 12 issues that the two parties and 
the leaders of the two parties would duke it out to the end. Both sides 
would go to their respective corners and you knew on those issues we 
would not find common ground and that was that.
  But on other issues, and I am talking about other issues related to 
health insurance and property insurance and tax relief, and not little 
itty bitty issues, not the small stuff but some really big things, that 
if everybody on both sides of the aisle, all the interested parties are 
willing to sit down at the table and

[[Page 27826]]

use another C word. Because we are really big on C words, I want a good 
C word, not cronyism, not corruption, not a lack of competence, I want 
compromise. That is the C word I would like to see used here. In my 11 
months here, I have not seen a whole lot of interest in compromise. It 
is my-way-or-the-highway type of politics here, and that is really sad.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And the agenda the gentlewoman has been 
articulating over the past 20 minutes or so I think separates us from 
even how our party used to be. Everybody has their crosses to bear, and 
I think we had been labeled many times as just a tax-and-spend party 
who never came up, at least in the last few years, with any really 
great ideas.
  Most of the Democrats over here voted yesterday for the alternative 
minimum tax, to make sure that average people will get a tax cut and 
they will not be burdened. So I think we are moving away from that. And 
I would say most of us have voted for middle class tax relief on a 
variety of occasions. But what we are saying here is that this is the 
broadband and the engineering. And our approach to this thing, research 
and development, tax credits, our approach to this is a new approach 
that neither party has had, but we have it now.
  The Democratic party is offering a new approach to this. And it is, 
in many ways, having broadband penetration for every single student and 
for every household in the next 5 years is an anti-poverty program. It 
is a jobs-creation program. These kids who live in poverty, we need to 
help them with heating oil and we do need to make sure these kids have 
the proper diet and the proper nutrition and all that. That is stuff 
that still needs to happen. But if that kid is caught in the digital 
divide, caught at the wrong end of the digital divide, that kid will 
never have an opportunity to hook up to any kind of economic growth 
that we may have because of this.
  That is why it is so important to get it everywhere. And what we are 
saying is we want that kid, who is somewhere in rural America or 
somewhere in some inner city, to have access to this. Because with a 
quality education, access to the technology and the proper community 
support, that kid will become a wealth creator. They will be creating 
wealth and paying taxes, instead of asking can I get qualified for the 
earned income tax credit, am I going to be on Medicaid, or what do I 
need?
  We want to propel people. And America needs to be a country of 
opportunity again, Debbie. It needs to be a country where people can 
say, I can be anything I want, I can do whatever I want because the 
proper infrastructure was in place when I was a kid to help propel me 
into a bright future.
  Ms. WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ. So as we close out, Mr. Speaker, and I think 
Mr. Ryan is going to put the board up that shows our 30-Something Web 
site, I have one wish. I have a wish for the holiday season; that we 
shift from the C words, the negative C words that have been prevalent 
in the headlines and in this Chamber, that we move away from the 
cronyism, from the corruption, from the lack of competence. And my wish 
for the holiday season and the new year is that we adopt a more 
positive C word; come together and find some common ground and some 
compromise.
  That seems to have been elusive, elusive mostly because it does not 
appear the Republican leadership has had any interest in finding common 
ground and compromise. So that is my wish for the holiday season.
  We want to thank the Democratic leader for the time spending some 
time on the floor discussing our views, and I yield to my colleague to 
give out the Web site.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Yes, this is the 30 Something Working Group. Send 
us an e-mail at 30somethingdems@
mail.house.gov. Thirty, the number, somethingdems@
mail.house.gov.

                          ____________________