[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4939-4942]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        THIRTY-SOMETHING CAUCUS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is recognized 
for half the time until midnight as the designee of the minority 
leader.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, I just want to say that it is an 
honor again to address the House and the American people, also. I am 
sharing this hour today with the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz), also. It is a pleasure to be here on the floor with 
her one more time.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Once again it is a pleasure to be here with 
you.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, if I may take just a moment to 
talk about a friend of ours and a pillar in Florida. Mr. Bill Lehman, 
Congressman William Lehman went on to glory today. He served our 
country well. He was blessed to be here for some 91 years. He passed 
away with his family by his side. He served in the 17th Congressional 
District, Madam Speaker, from the time of 1973 to 1992 with great 
distinction.

                              {time}  2300

  He was one of the longest serving, if not the longest serving, 
chairmen of the Transportation Subcommittee of the Committee on 
Appropriations and did good works while he was here. A quiet man but a 
man that enjoyed to have a good time, and we will appropriately honor 
him with an hour here on the floor, designated by the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi), Democratic leader, at a later date, with 
reflections of friends that served with him in the Congress and also 
those Members who knew him well. And we send our prayers and 
appreciation to his family for allowing him to serve this great 
government of ours and play his role in democracy as the annals will 
reflect.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman 
Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding to me. My colleague from Florida is always so eloquent, and 
one of the things that has struck me from the time I have been 
privileged to serve in the Congress, for about 10 weeks now, is that we 
really stand on the shoulders of giants in this Chamber and there are 
precious few that fall into that category and that deserve that 
accolade. And Congressman Lehman was most definitely one of them.
  I am privileged to represent a good portion of his district. I can 
only hope, as I am sure the gentleman can because he also represents a 
portion of his former district, that both he and I and our colleagues 
from South Florida can even begin to fill his shoes. Certainly it is 
our responsibility to carry on his legacy, and I know that is what we 
will strive to do every day on this floor, and I look forward to the 
hour that will be devoted to his life.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity. Not 
only I, but former Congresswoman Carrie Meek, the three of us had an 
opportunity to take a picture together. Congressman Lehman, in 1972, in 
the newly created 17th Congressional District, he ran for it. As the 
gentlewoman knows, he served in local government also and ran for that 
seat and won. So we are the only three that have served in the 17th 
Congressional District, and that was a good time. We have an 
opportunity to celebrate not only his life, but we will have an 
opportunity to celebrate his spirit for years to come. And I know that 
he is there with his good friend, Dante Fascell, and they are talking 
about old times when they used to run this House.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is right, Madam Speaker. And if the 
gentleman will continue to yield, the one thing I want to add is that 
for those who did not know Congressman Lehman, his name was far more 
widely known because there are far too numerous to mention car 
dealerships across Florida and, quite honestly, Congressman Lehman was 
a leader in transportation for good reason, because there are thousands 
and thousands of drivers who began their driving careers thanks to Mr. 
Lehman and his family. And he has been not just a pillar of the 
community but a giant when it comes to transportation, and I think that 
should not be lost on this body.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for her 
comments; and like I said, we will honor him appropriately on this 
great House floor.
  Madam Speaker, I just want to once again thank the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi) for allowing us to represent the minority side 
here tonight and also to all of the leadership on the Democratic side. 
And being a Member of the House, it is always a great honor and 
privilege to come to the floor. So many Members before us have had this 
opportunity.
  The 30-something Working Group that was created, and we have to talk 
about this every time because we have to make sure that Members 
understand that we are here to come to this floor to share good 
information and to make sure the American people know exactly what we 
are doing for them and also in some instances what we are doing to 
them, and I think it is very important that we remember that.
  We have been talking a lot about Social Security lately, but tonight 
we are going to talk about the deficit. And I want to once again 
commend those groups that are out there on the Social Security front, 
before we get into the budget, that have been out there working very 
hard.
  The President today made some comments from the White House. One 
thing that he did say, and I am glad that he has decided to come with 
the American people, was that privatization of Social Security will not 
resolve the Social Security issue. Some may say crisis; I say issue 
because Social Security is going to be solvent for the next 47 years, 
providing 100 percent of the benefits to the American people as they 
enjoy today, the 48 million Americans who celebrate benefits from 
Social Security, including survivor benefits that individuals that are 
receiving from those individuals that have passed on and have left 
something for their children.
  Social Security will not end tomorrow. So I said we are going to be 
here on the budget. But it is interesting, when we start talking about 
the budget, that none of the philosophy or principles, because there is 
no plan, is not reflected in the budget. So we will talk about that a 
little bit more. But I want to just say that Democrats believe that for 
every issue that is facing our Nation, it is our responsibility to 
ensure the policies that we pursue are consistent with the values that 
we cherish.

[[Page 4940]]

These guiding principles are particularly crucial when it comes to our 
children and the future generations.
  The Bush administration budget and the Republican leadership budget 
fall short of protecting or investing in our children, in our young 
people. It is fiscally reckless, adding trillions to the deficit over 
the next 10 years, but we teach our children to save and be fiscally 
responsible.
  It is morally irresponsible to slash health care programs that are 
for young people and seniors, I must add, in my opinion. Education and 
youth development programs that provide our children opportunities to 
achieve the American Dream are crucial.
  In Proverbs it tells us to ``train up a child in the way he should go 
and when he is old, he will not depart from it.'' I think that it is 
important that we hold that as a value and cherish that here in this 
House. If the lessons to our children and young people are reflected in 
the House Republican budget, then we have failed them and ourselves and 
the future of the democracy.
  We have only about 20 more minutes to talk, but we are going to share 
some of the values of the Democratic budget versus the Republican 
budget. And I must say there are some individuals that are well 
intended on the majority side, I must add; but they are being 
overwhelmed by individuals who are willing to fight for others and not 
fight for all. So I think it is important that we share the facts here 
tonight.
  And I would love to here some of the gentlewoman's opening comments, 
and hopefully we can get into some of these charts we have so that we 
can share with the American people what is happening here in this 
House.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Absolutely, Madam Speaker. And I think it has 
to be said that the gentleman has been an incredible leader in co-
chairing with our colleague from Ohio this 30-something Working Group. 
We are really here to talk to our generation, to talk to the American 
people in our generation about the policy decisions that are made here 
in Washington and how it affects them.
  I think the gentleman is right. I think we have a number of well-
intentioned colleagues on the other side. But, unfortunately, this 
train is being driven by the right. It is being driven by the right 
wing of the Republican Congress. They are driving the train here, and 
the moderate voice is just completely snuffed out. Absolutely snuffed 
out.
  And I think we should spend a little bit of time talking about how 
the Bush administration's budget affects education because a lot has 
been said and the President has touted this Pell grant increase as 
being so fantastic and how he has really made a commitment to expanding 
access to higher education. When we sift through the facts and the 
reality as to how he gets to that $100 increase in Pell grants, it is 
really astonishing that they would claim it is an increase.
  Essentially, when he was campaigning in 2000, the President pledged 
to make college more affordable and accessible by increasing the 
maximum Pell grant for college freshmen to $5,100.

                              {time}  2310

  He broke his promise once again. Once again, he says one thing and 
does another. They talk about numbers over here, and they are much 
higher or much lower, the opposite of what they promise, again and 
again.
  Since 2001, just to give the facts, the cost of attending a four year 
public college has increased by more than $2,300. And what was 
President Bush's response? To increase the maximum Pell grant by $10 to 
$4,150 in 2006. But that would only pay for 4 percent of the college 
cost increases since 2001.
  The way he finances this Pell grant increase is by cutting, 
essentially decimating, many, many other student aid programs. We have 
a chart here that I will move over and try to walk you through.
  Essentially the Bush budget completely eliminates the Perkins loan 
program, a $66 million cut. If that proposal is enacted, more than 
670,000 borrowers in 2006 alone would lose out on loan forgiveness if 
they choose to serve this country by becoming teachers, law enforcement 
officers or serve in the military. It totally eliminates that program.
  The Bush budget forces millions of low and middle income students to 
pay thousands more for their college loans, because they eliminate the 
current low fixed consolidation benefits. According to the nonpartisan, 
their numbers, Congressional Research Service, this change will force 
the typical student borrower to pay about $5,500 more in college loans.
  The President also, in order to give you a measly $100 increase in 
your Pell grants, he also completely eliminates the funds for Gear Up, 
for Upward Bound and for the Talent Search programs. These programs 
ensure that high risk students succeed in high school and move on to 
college. If the President has his way, nearly 1.3 million students, 70 
percent of whom are minorities, will lose the support they need to make 
it to college.
  This is how we are improving access to higher education in the Bush 
budget. It is just astonishing.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Well, reclaiming my time, I am so glad that the 
gentlewoman pointed that out, because I think it is important that the 
Members pay very close attention to what is happening. I think not only 
do we have the constitutional responsibility, but we have the 
responsibility to the people that elected us in our districts to make 
sure we are not followers, but leaders in this process.
  I can tell you I take no pleasure, Madam Speaker, to be a part of a 
Congress that oversees the highest deficit in this history of the 
Republic. I must say at no other time in this country's history we have 
had the deficit that we have right now in, and it is very unfortunate 
that this is going to be passed on to not only my children and 
grandchildren, but definitely those that are yet unborn.
  The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz) and I are both 
parents. In many instances our children are going to be okay because of 
who we are and why we are here. But I can tell you that my 
constituents, and I know your constituents, did not say, well, I want 
to send you all to Congress so you can have better health care than I 
have, so that your children will have better opportunities than my 
children have. They sent us here to make sure we do not hand their 
children a bad deal. Because the goal of any parent or grandparent is 
to make sure that their children and grandchildren have a better 
opportunity than what they had.
  I have a chart here that I want to share with the Members. As you can 
see, this is what has happened as relates to the backsliding here into 
the deficit ditch. This deficit went from a surplus, I must add, during 
the Clinton years when he started, and this House I must add, balanced 
the budget without one Republican vote, I must add, balanced the 
budget, and we were into surplus, some $263 billion in the surplus.
  Now we have found ourselves in a downward spiral since this 
administration and this emboldened Republican majority here in this 
House has taken us to some $4 trillion projected deficit. I think it is 
important that we understand that this is real money, these are just 
not numbers, and it is taking our children even further down.
  I have another chart here, and I am going to talk rather quickly 
because I know we have to move on here. This is what is going on as 
relates to the interest payments on the deficit, on the debt, and I 
think that it is only getting worse.
  As you can see here, in the 2004 budget, money that is being spent, 
we are spending more money on paying down the debt, and this number 
here is actually in the billions, I must add, some $150 billion in the 
2004 budget. But better yet, here in education we are spending less 
than we are spending on taking down the debt.
  Also as you start looking at the environment here in purple, we are 
spending far less than we are spending in paying off the debt because 
of irresponsible spending. And if you go further over, our veterans, 
our patriots, so

[[Page 4941]]

many of us talk about them. I am on the Committee on Armed Services, we 
have a lot of chest beating going on in that committee about who loves 
the troops and who does not love the troops, and who loves veterans and 
who does not love veterans, and folks start talking about the tattoos 
on their chest that they love the troops and all of this.
  But I can tell you one thing as it relates to our spending in the 
2004 budget, it does not reflect our values. I was talking about 
Proverbs a little bit more, but I will come back to that a little 
later.
  I think it is important for us to also look at the amounts spent by 
2010 if we continue onto this track. This big red mountain here is not 
education, it is not the environment, it is not transportation, it is 
not spending money on our veterans, making sure that we hold up our end 
of the deal that we said we would provide to them if they serve our 
country. No, it is the debt. It is the Federal debt as the way we see 
it now and the way it will be seen up until 2010.
  I think it is also important for you to see education and where it 
stands as it relates to the debt and environment and veterans and so 
on.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If the gentleman will yield on the debt, I 
want to just follow up with what you are saying about debt. If we can 
come on over to this chart, this talks about how the debt actually 
impacts families. Because debt, when you talk about trillions, one 
thing I noticed about this job that we have that our constituents so 
graciously gave us, is that when you start talking about billions and 
trillions of dollars, people's eyes start to glaze over. I have learned 
the difference between a billion and a trillion, and it is a lot of 
money. And what this debt means is a lot of money to the average family 
of four.
  Going up the scale here with the ever-increasing debt that the Bush 
budgets have put on us, we are now going to reach, in 2004, the Bush 
budget raises the debt tax, which is basically what the debt costs 
every family of four in America, right now it is costing every family 
in America almost $4,400.
  You go up the scale with the Bush budget proposal, and we are not 
even talking about Social Security, we are talking about what we have 
got right here, right now, not even talking about privatizing Social 
Security. By 2015, each family of four would have $10,500 that they 
essentially would responsibility for in terms of a debt tax and how 
much the debt was going to cost them.
  That is where we have gone in this country. We are just going to keep 
adding and adding and weighing people down. What happens with our 
generation, on the front page of the South Florida Sun Sentinel the 
other day, I was flying up here, and the front page talked about 
``Generation Debt.''
  Our generation is Generation Debt, because we are not the generation 
of savers. Our parents and our grandparents were the generation of 
savers, but we are not. So we are already shouldering a tremendous 
amount, way more than we should, in personal debt. On top of that, the 
President heaps this on top of us also, and it is just wrong.
  If you are going to talk about what we are doing here, you have to 
talk about jobs and technology and how that is going to affect our 
generation.
  The number one issue for young people right now, for our generation, 
is finding a job. We supposedly have this fantastic reemergence of the 
economy, but job creation is still totally flat.
  The current unemployment rate for individuals 16 to 19 is 17 percent. 
And, more and more, those young people need a job. We are not just 
talking about a paper route anymore, we are talking about kids who are 
16 to 19 years old who need to earn a salary to help pay the family's 
bills. If they do not have a job, then their family is falling down 
flat. And the President's budget contains absolutely no job growth 
stimulation proposals, it squanders $1.6 trillion on tax breaks to 
people who do not need them.
  Job training: We have no proposals for job training. In fact, the 
President cuts job training in his budget. He consolidates it into a 
single block grant, and then cuts the funding for these programs, for 
job training programs, by $146 million.
  He eliminates the Advanced Technology Program, and I am trying to 
speed along also, which funds research and emerging technologies.
  His budget slashes by nearly 60 percent the funds from the 
Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program, which is a program that 
helps small manufacturers with new technologies.
  And lastly, our generation cares about the Internet. There are so 
many opportunities in expanding access to high speed Internet. This 
President has proposed to slash broadband assistance guaranteed loans 
by $190 million, and he has called for the total elimination of 
broadband telecommunications grants.
  Are they thinking about our folks? They are clearly not. They have no 
interest in what is going to happen to the generation coming behind the 
one that already has theirs.

                              {time}  2320

  That is what we have got to do. We have got to make sure we can 
refocus the attention that is paid to our generation because no one is 
thinking about us.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I can tell the gentlewoman that tomorrow on this 
floor Members will not only vote on the Republican budget but will also 
vote on the Democratic budget that we have put forth, and I must say 
that our budget will balance out in the next 10 years.
  There has been so much cake and ice cream given out in the last 4 
years and from the majority side. I want us to confuse Members and 
start talking about the President. The President proposed the budget of 
course, but we come up with our own budget. And I can tell you if you 
think the President's budget is bad, you need to look at the majority-
side budget.
  I can tell you some of my friends are Republicans and I can tell you 
this, here in the House, some of them are fiscal conservatives but they 
do not want to make a career decision as it relates to their position 
in this House to vote against their very own budget.
  I will also tell you this, if one is a fiscal conservative there is 
no way in the world they can vote for that budget. I am very proud of 
the work that the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Spratt) and others 
have done on the budget. In our Democratic budget we have given $1.6 
billion more than the Republican budget for veterans health care and 
also for other programs for 2006, and $17 billion more over the next 5 
years. The Democratic budget also reversed the $798 million cut to 
veteran affairs which helped veterans and their families.
  I must also share, not only with the Members, 77 percent of the 
troops that are in Iraq and Afghanistan are under the age of 30 years 
old. These young people should be paid the attention that the Congress 
should reflect their future and their families' future, and I think 
that is important.
  I do not want to get too far away because I want to make sure people 
truly understand this because I know there are about 100 charts in this 
Chamber. I can tell you for every chart we have, we not only have the 
source, this is from the Treasury International Capital System from the 
House Committee on the Budget, the Democratic staff.
  This is what foreign countries like China and others, what they pay 
for our debt. We go to them. We ask them for money. They buy our bonds 
and they pay our debt. Now we are 44 percent indebted to foreign 
countries. And you can see how it has risen since the majority party 
has been emboldened by having the President in the White House. First 
it was 30 percent in 2000. In 2001 it was 30 percent. In 2002 it was 34 
percent. In 2003, 37 percent; and 2004, 44 percent and climbing. There 
is no decline. There is no effort to bring a decline now.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. There is a name for that.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. What is the name?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Borrow and spend.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. That is very interesting because I heard some 
folks

[[Page 4942]]

in here talking about borrowing and spending and blaming us. There is 
more spending that is going on, but it has not just been about the war. 
It has been about irresponsible policy-making here.
  I want to say we want to thank
those that contact us via e-mail. We
receive quite a bit of e-mail from not
only the American people, but also even within this Capitol complex. If 
you want to e-mail us at [email protected], we would 
appreciate it.
  If you want to learn more not only about Social Security but about 
the Democratic budget, you can go on to Democraticleader.house.gov/
30something. But you can go on the Democratic leader's Web site and get 
what we are doing here and what we are proposing.
  I think it is also important for us to talk about. One may say, why 
are you all talking about what the Republican budget, what they are 
doing to the American people?
  The reason why we are talking about it is because we are not in the 
majority. We fought all day on this floor, 5 hours of amendments, 5 
hours of debate to fight on behalf of the everyday worker and retired 
American in this country. And if we were in the majority, it would be 
totally different. Those numbers I gave on veterans, the veterans would 
have what they need. The true budget balancing will happen in 10 years. 
We have made Social Security, the issue of privatization, we can tell 
the President to stop spending the taxpayers' money and burning Federal 
jet fuel, because it is not going to happen.
  So until we are able to get the majority, then we will not be able to 
do some of the things we are doing; but we will fight to the bitter end 
to make sure that we protect American people and their values.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. In the last several weeks I have tried to talk 
about the impact on women that the Bush administration's policies have 
had. For example, there are 20 million women in this country without 
health insurance and millions more who can barely afford to pay their 
premiums; but this budget does nothing to hold down health care costs. 
It slashes Medicaid by a total of $45 billion over the next 10 years. 
That is a devastating cut on women and children because women account 
for over 70 percent of adult Medicaid beneficiaries.
  In terms of violence against women, the President's budget cuts the 
Violence Against Women Act programs by $19 million; child care, the 
budget freezes funding for the Maternal and Child Health block grant 
and eliminates the Universal Newborn Screening Program.
  Now, I have a 19-month-old. You have young children. I have passed 
legislation in Florida that ensured that we expanded screening for 
genetic anomalies and problems in newborns, and this Bush budget 
reverses all of that progress.
  If we do not make sure we screen newborns for hearing problems, then 
we will have learning disabilities that are directly related to hearing 
abnormalities and without any excuse. But we have got to make sure that 
we think about children and families when prioritizing and that is what 
we could do. And the proof is in the pudding that we do not.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Does the gentlewoman have something else to talk 
about?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I also wanted to talk a little bit about 
health care because one of the most important issues that we have in 
this country is the skyrocketing cost of health care.
  We have 45 million Americans who do not have health insurance. That 
means when they are sick, they cannot go to the doctor and they have to 
let their health care problems spiral out of control until they have to 
go to the emergency room to get the problem solved. And young 
Americans, our generation, are the most likely group to be insured. We 
think we are invincible. We think we are not going to have to worry 
about having health insurance and going to the doctor, so we go 
without. But more often we also cannot afford it.
  Thirty percent of young adults age 18 to 24 have no health insurance 
at all. Compare that with 18 percent of adults who are 35 to 44 and 
only 1 percent of seniors. So the health care crisis disproportionately 
affects our generation, and there is nothing in the Bush budget to 
improve that. Where is this President's leadership on expanding access 
to health care?
  When I go down the street, when I go to the supermarket at home, when 
I go to street festivals, people stop me in the street. I have heard 
the gentleman talk about people stopping him in the street and talking 
about issues that are important to them. The thing that they stop me on 
the most often is education and health care.
  They say, if my baby girl or my baby boy is sick, I have no health 
insurance and I cannot get them shots. If they have a cold, I cannot 
bring them to the doctor. I have to wait until the problem is bad 
enough to bring them to the emergency room, and no mother or father 
should have to suffer through something like that.
  This President needs to exercise some leadership in this budget on 
how to solve this problem and he has not. It is an abdication of 
leadership.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I want to close and touch a little on CDBG, 
which is the Community Development Block Grants.
  The Republican budget cuts funding for Community Development Block 
Grants by $8 billion over the next 5 years. These cuts will likely fall 
on Community Development Block Grants which the Republicans have 
proposed to eliminate, I must add eliminate. These cuts will have a 
significant negative impact on the ability of State and local 
governments to be able to provide housing and community development 
needs.
  Last year, 1.6 billion of CDBG dollars were used for housing, and the 
result of that was 120,000 homeowners received assistance for rehabbing 
or working on their homes; and 11,000 families became first-time home 
buyers, and 19,000 rental units were being rehabbed.
  The proposed CDBG cuts will have a particularly severe impact on the 
resources provided by housing and job training, domestic violence 
prevention, child care assistance, homeless assistance, small business 
development, and other services.
  The Democratic budget provides $2 billion more than the Republican 
budget for 2006 and $9 billion for over the next 5 years. Community and 
regional development will be eliminated and the downward spiral of 
these block grants will be detrimental to so many communities.
  I want to say to the city and county mayors, you need to call your 
Congressman and your Congresswoman and the Members of the other body 
and the administration and say the cutting of what we need will hurt 
our communities.

                          ____________________