[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 13911-13917]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Wilson of South Carolina). Under the 
Speaker's announced policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Meek) is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, once again it is an honor to come 
to the House floor. We would like to thank the Democratic leadership 
for allowing us to have this hour. The 30-something Working Group, as 
you know, comes to the floor if not daily every other day when we have 
the opportunity to do so, to share with the Members of the House 
initiatives and plans that we have on the Democratic side of the aisle 
that will make America better and stronger.
  As you know, we have been on the message of a new direction for 
America, and we have been working very hard on that because that is the 
message that we have and that the American people are looking forward 
to seeing implemented.
  So many times here on this floor, we talk about ideas and concepts, 
but they never really make it to the legislative debate, due to the 
fact that here in the House, Democrats are in the minority; and the 
majority has adopted a rule that there is not a true bipartisan spirit 
here in this House, only when we vote on post offices and naming 
bridges.
  But when it comes down to policy, policy that is affecting the people 
that we represent every day, there is a great divide, a divide to where 
we are not sitting down at the negotiating table, in committee, in 
subcommittee, and definitely not sitting down before legislation comes 
to the floor in a conference committee to talk about what is best for 
America and how can we make it better.
  The American people yearn and hope for Democrats and Republicans and 
the one Independent in this House to work together. I think it is 
important to outline the fact that our leadership has said if given the 
opportunity, earning the opportunity of the American people to lead, 
that you will see a bipartisan spirit, not only spirit, you will see 
bipartisan action in this House on major pieces of legislation dealing 
with health care, education, how we are going to balance the budget, 
just not talk on how to cut the deficit in half or we may cut the 
deficit in half, really breaking down the deficit so that we will not 
pay more than what we are spending and investing in education, homeland 
security, and veteran affairs.
  That is why we come to the floor. And we start talking about a new 
direction for America, making sure that health care through 
prescription drugs, and also making sure that HMOs eliminate wasteful 
spending and a number of other reforms that should take place there so 
that we do not have so many Americans going into emergency rooms.
  Also lowering the price of gas and achieving energy independence is 
one of our major goals. There was just a report that was released by 
the Agriculture Department that is now having some sort of discussion 
about ethanol and what we can use, how we can use the ethanol and how 
it can play a role in making us independent, the E-85, and our proposal 
of putting America on a new direction or in a new direction.

                              {time}  1830

  We talk about the importance of alternative fuels, not just investing 
in the Middle East and not investing in the Midwest. So we look forward 
to continuing to push that philosophy here on this floor as we have the 
opportunity to lead this House, knowing the American people can deliver 
that, making sure that working families making more than what is 
presently the minimum wage, increasing that minimum wage, making sure 
they are able to bring home more to their families.
  Millions of Americans are living on the minimum wage. It has been 
very difficult. And we have charts here, Mr. Speaker, that would 
illustrate how the minimum wage, we haven't seen a national minimum 
wage hike since 1997, but we have seen increases in other areas where 
families are still expected to perform under those circumstances. And I 
think that is where we are finding our shortfall as it relates to 
individuals being able to afford college. Cutting the cost for college, 
making sure that there is a tax deduction for college tuition and 
expanding the Pell grants and cutting the student loan costs in half, 
making sure that college is affordable, and rolling back the increases 
that Republican Congress have put on students.
  Not just students. When people talk about students, they think that 
we are just talking about young people that graduate from high school. 
We are talking about families that have invested their entire lives 
with their children to make sure that they can go to school, that it is 
affordable, that we don't continue to move the goal post the closer 
families get to making sure that they can provide for their young 
people to achieve a college education.
  Also, preventing the privatization of Social Security, coming up with 
real Social Security reform, and making sure that folks can retire in 
dignity knowing that they have a Social Security plan and a Social 
Security card that is more, that stands for the security of their 
retirement.
  Also, those individuals that are on disability, those individuals 
that are receiving survivor benefits, making sure that they don't end 
up in some line somewhere reporting to some private institution because 
someone thought it was a great idea to make money for individuals on 
Wall Street,
  And, lastly, I would say a part of a new direction for America is 
really being fiscally responsible. Now, the first Democratic hour out 
here, Mr. Speaker, we had the Blue Dog Democrats that were here, and 
they spent the entire hour talking about fiscal responsibility. And I 
think it is important that the American people and the Republican 
majority House understand that we have the will and the desire and the 
track record to show that we truly know how to balance the budget, 
surpluses as far as the eye can see when President Bush went into 
office and a Republican majority was emboldened, and now we are 
borrowing at a rate that one writer in the Washington Times, Mr. 
Chapman, had said that the President has dethroned Lyndon Johnson as it 
relates to spending. And that is a heavy statement to make, even though 
I feel very strongly that President Johnson at that time of transition 
invested truly in America and not just in billionaires and millionaires 
receiving tax cuts, and also oil companies running away with public 
dollar giveaways to them and record profits at the same time.
  I am so honored tonight, Mr. Speaker, as usual, to be joined by my 
colleague just north of my district and just west of my district and 
east of my district in some areas, Ms. Debbie Wasserman Schultz from 
Florida, and also Mr. Tim Ryan from Youngstown, Ohio.
  As you know, last evening, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I was sharing

[[Page 13912]]

with the Members we don't just come to the floor, we actually meet to 
talk about these issues that are facing Americans. And I think it is 
important that we continue in that spirit and moving America in the 
right direction, in a new direction than what they see right now from 
the Republican majority.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And it is a privilege to join you and Mr. Ryan 
and Mr. Delahunt each night that we take the House floor and talk about 
the new direction that we as Democrats would take this country. Because 
what most people have seen in America recently is essentially the 
Republican leadership's efforts to engage in the politics of 
distraction, because they have to distract the American people from 
what is really going on here because the reality that is going on here 
is too painful to closely examine.
  I mean, they certainly can't hold up their wild success to the 
American people for examination and celebration because they haven't 
had any wild success. We are looking here at a record deficit, as you 
discussed, Mr. Meek. We are looking at record gas prices. We are 
looking at record numbers of Americans who are without health 
insurance. We are looking at record increases in the cost of health 
insurance, small business owners who are unable to continue to support 
their employees and provide them with health insurance benefits. And we 
are looking at a woeful inability on the part of the Republican 
administration and this leadership of this House to protect the 
homeland and focus on domestic homeland security.
  That is why they instead have focused on things like the Pledge of 
Allegiance and whether students are saying ``under God'' in school when 
they recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and they are focusing on amending 
the Constitution to prohibit flag burning or amending the Constitution 
to ban gay marriage. Now, each of us might have our own individual 
opinion on those matters, but when you go to Youngstown, Mr. Ryan, when 
you go to Miami, and when I go home to Broward County, I just don't 
hear, and I would bet you my last dollar that the vast majority of our 
Republican colleagues don't hear one, two, three, four, or five on the 
list any of those items. More likely, you have the father of four who 
leaves his house in the morning not worried about whether his son is 
going to be able to say ``under God: In the Pledge of Allegiance that 
day, but whether or not he is going to be able to afford the $55 it is 
going to cost him, at least, or around, to fill up his gas tank.
  And how about the mom whose son or daughter is fighting on our 
Nation's behalf in Iraq or Afghanistan? Do you think she is worried 
about whether Congress is going to pass a constitutional amendment to 
ban flag burning? Because that is certainly a notion of patriotism. Or 
is she more likely praying every single day that her baby is going to 
come home to her? I would say it is more likely the latter. And those 
are the kinds of issues that people are addressing with us when we go 
home.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Or at least have a discussion about how is this 
going to end; how is this thing we have in the Middle East going to 
end. We are not having that discussion. We are all patriotic; we all 
support the country. We are Members of Congress. For God's sake, we 
love America. That is easy. And if you want to say ``under God,'' say 
it. Parents should tell their kids, just say it. Problem solved.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. But could you imagine, they actually rolled 
out an agenda that those items were at the top of the list. Because 
what they have to do is they have to try to distract the American 
people from their pitiful failure here, from their inability to get a 
handle on the deficit, from their inability to do anything about 
alternative energy exploration and reducing gas prices, about their 
inability to expand health care to more people, and their inability to 
develop any sort of plan to eventually get us out of this endless war 
in Iraq, and their inability to deal with domestic homeland security, 
border security, while protecting our American people here at home.
  They are real focused on protecting everybody else in the world and 
making sure that everybody else in the world's quality of life is in 
good shape. What about the folks here? No, instead they just want to 
spend a lot of time on the issues that are really none of their 
business, that are really just decisions that families make inside 
their own homes among family members.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I guess if we were on the other side, Mr. Speaker, 
I guess the question we have to ask ourselves is, Why are they trying 
to distract? What are they distracting us from? And I think when you 
look at what is happening and why the Democrats want to take the 
country into a new direction, all you have to do is look around. And I 
know, Mr. Meek, and you know, Mr. Meek and Ms. Wasserman Schultz, there 
are a lot of Republicans, when we start saying this stuff, they have 
got to turn their TV off, they can't listen to it because I think it 
rings true.
  The bottom line is this, the neoconservative Republican agenda has 
been implemented into the United States, period. And look around, here 
is what it looks like: Iraq, Afghanistan, gas prices, health care 
prices, tuition costs, minimum wage. Look around. Deficits, who are you 
borrowing it from? That is the neoconservative agenda. It is here. And 
we need to take the country in another direction. So they obviously 
don't want to talk about it.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So as Mr. Meek was saying, what we would do if 
we were in the majority, and hopefully the American people will give us 
that opportunity in November, we would make sure right at the get-go as 
Leader Pelosi, who will be Speaker Pelosi when we win back the 
majority, as she talks about, one of the first things that we will do 
the first week, raise the minimum wage. It hasn't happened since 1997, 
going on 9 years now. That is just pitiful. You have got people in 
America, 7 million people in America making $5.15 an hour. That is just 
an outrage. And we have got to make sure, that is the kind of issue 
that people need the Congress to deal with.
  I mean, in our home State we have had to address it inside the State 
of Florida. Because the Federal minimum wage hasn't been raised in 9 
years, we have got to make sure as we take the country in a new 
direction, as Democrats would do, we would focus on fixing the 
ridiculous prescription drug plan that they passed for Medicare 
beneficiaries. We would make sure that the doughnut hole that provides 
this humongous gap that senior citizens are falling through after they 
reach I think about $2,500 in coverage for prescription drugs, they 
fall through that doughnut hole, and they literally have to spend 
several thousand dollars out of their own pocket before the part D 
prescription drug benefit picks back up.
  It also prohibits the Federal Government from negotiating with 
pharmaceutical companies. We would make that change, and we would 
require the Federal Government to negotiate with pharmaceutical 
companies. Literally, the difference between prohibition and requiring 
it, and just like they do in the VA right now, and save millions and 
millions of dollars. I mean, who was this bill for?
  If you want to make sure that there is a part D prescription drug 
benefit that benefits senior citizens, then people will vote for us. If 
they want to make sure that there is one that benefits the 
pharmaceutical industry, then people will vote for them.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And just those few steps that we can take in the 
first week that we are here, talk about taking the country in a new 
direction. Imagine if we raised the minimum wage that first day, 
imagine we cut the student loan interest rates in half saving students 
and parents $4,000 or $5,000 over the life of the loan, the negotiation 
by the Secretary of Health and Human Services with the pharmaceutical 
companies, the money we would be able to save the government just in 
those three steps. We are not talking about brain surgery here. We are 
talking about basic fundamental commonsense moves that will benefit 
everyone, commonsense moves for the

[[Page 13913]]

common good. And I think moving the country in a new direction is what 
we need to do.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And when people ask what the Democratic agenda 
is, that is it right there. That is what we would do.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. That is it. We don't have some elaborate playbook 
that is going to run left and fake this way and run this way. Three or 
four different basic things, and you will see the difference between 
having Democrats running the government and Republicans.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And Republicans can't get away with saying all 
the things that we would do would cost money and build the deficit, 
because we would reinstate the pay-as-you-go rule, the PAYGO rules, to 
ensure that we don't spend more money than we take in, which is how 
when President Clinton was in office we had a surplus and not a 
deficit.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I would like to yield to Mr. Delahunt.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I thank my friend and chairman of the 30-something 
Group for yielding. I apologize for being a bit tardy, but I had 
business back in the office.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Something more important than us.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. No, that is not the case.
  But I heard you talk about Medicare, and it provoked a special 
interest.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. A personal reaction?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. A personal special interest, because I don't know if 
you are aware of this, I am somewhat embarrassed to acknowledge this in 
a venue such as this, but a week from today I will be on Medicare.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Wow. When is your birthday?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. July 18 is my birthday, and I hit that magic figure 
that entitles me to be eligible for Medicare. And if there is a single 
program that has made a difference in the lives of senior citizens, I 
was going to say elderly, but I think I will change that now, of senior 
citizens in this country, it is the Medicare program. There has been 
study after study which concludes that there is a connection between 
longevity and the advent back in 1965 of Medicare and health that now 
the older segment of the population enjoys. It is absolutely an 
essential, critical program.

                              {time}  1845

  Part of that, as Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz was saying, is the 
fact that today, rather than referring people to hospitals, the 
percentage of treatment that is given to senior citizens is through 
prescribed pharmaceuticals. It has made clearly a world of difference.
  And when we had this debate back in December of 2004, about the so-
called prescription drug benefit, Democrats argued that to prohibit the 
Federal Government from negotiating with the large drug manufacturers 
for discounts, substantial discounts, as you just indicated, as they do 
now with the VA, was nothing but a windfall profit for large drug 
companies. I don't know what the estimate is now, but you said 
millions. Let me respectfully disagree with you and say tens of 
billions, maybe in excess of 100 billion, but it is clearly a 
substantial amount of money.
  Just stop and think for 1 minute. That money would eliminate the 
doughnut hole. And by the doughnut hole, we mean once the cost of a 
particular prescription exceeds an amount, I think it is $2,600, for 
the next $3,000-plus a senior citizen has to pay for that prescription 
out of his or her own pocket.
  We are already receiving calls, I do not know if your district 
offices have had this experience, but the volume of calls from seniors 
saying, you know, I didn't realize how quickly I would reach that so-
called doughnut hole, and I can't afford the next $3,000 to meet my 
medical needs. And I need those drugs that take care of my cardiac 
problem, for example, and I can't afford it, Mr. Congressman. What am I 
going to do?
  I know you are saying that we can address that, and we can address 
that without adding to the deficit, but I think that is a commitment 
that ought to be made to people who are on Medicare so that they can 
enjoy a longer and more healthy life as they age, because they deserve 
it.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Well, Mr. Delahunt, I think it is important to 
take it away from the political debate here on this floor, between what 
we believe that the American people want and need versus what the 
special interests must have. The only way that people are going to win 
on this floor is if we give them voice.
  Last night, we got into a passionate discussion about the minimum 
wage and why it was important. And we, I think, all agree that we give 
those individuals voice that are punching in and out every day and 
catching the early bus. We give voice to that mother that is trying to 
figure out how she is going to get the kids to school and make it to 
work making minimum wage, working more than half a day to even cover 
the gas costs, let alone having to buy groceries and do all those other 
things; and that father that catches the early bus and is trying to 
make it happen.
  So I think that as these fuel prices continue to go up, as it relates 
to Medicare, there is this quiet inching up the storm of new 
requirements and new loopholes for seniors to jump through in the hopes 
they will not follow through or go through all those hoops, so that 
they do not get what they deserve.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I don't know if any of you saw it, I think it was 
yesterday in our major newspapers, I noticed that there was a story 
relative to a report that indicated that much of the information that 
seniors received relative to the prescription drug program was 
erroneous and inaccurate. And we all know about the confusion at the 
beginning of the program.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Remember the error that was made by the 
Department of Health and Human Services in the Medicare and You 
handbook they sent out to all the Medicare beneficiaries? And when they 
recognized the error in information about the prescription drug program 
and advising people who were dual-eligible what kind and how 
comprehensive their benefits were going to be and how much they were 
going to have to pay for them, they refused to send out a correction. 
The only way they were going to make the real answers available was via 
the Internet or if people called and asked.
  Now, how is that a commitment to clarity, to making sure people can 
truly access the benefits that they are entitled to and that they do 
not pay more than they are supposed to?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. And what is happening now, as I said, senior citizens 
were unaware of the fact that that limit would be reached so quickly, 
which would put them into the doughnut hole, or I call it the 
``abyss.''
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. The belly of a whale.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Right. Because that has happened so quickly that they 
believed initially that it was only the moneys that they had to pay out 
under the so-called copayment system. But, no, it was the total amount 
of the cost of the drug between what they had to pay out of their 
pocket and what the government was paying.
  So all of a sudden, people who are spending $600, $700, $800 a month 
on a drug regimen for, let us use the example of those who have a 
cardiac problem, will find themselves, in 3 or 4 months, having already 
reached that cap and now they are on their own. And that is happening 
now.
  Meanwhile, we cannot negotiate with drug manufacturers because the 
Republican majority was protecting the pharmaceutical industry.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Delahunt, the American people want to be 
leveled with, that is the bottom line. Mr. Ryan said it earlier. They 
just want us to shoot straight. They want someone to be truthful with 
them. In some parts of America they say, it is what it is; and if it is 
about the numbers of what the private sector and what the special 
interests can make off of every deal.
  Yes, we all want a prescription drug plan, but at the same time we 
want to be able to make sure we get the biggest bang for the buck. And 
not for the special interests, but for the people that

[[Page 13914]]

need the drugs and the meds. Yes, we want to help oil companies be able 
to be innovative and to find alternative fuels, but not on the backs of 
Americans paying $3.25 a gallon. And, yes, we do want people to have 
the opportunity to have quality health care, but not being gouged as it 
relates to health insurance, watching out for the health insurance 
companies first.
  The Republican majority has done that, and then confusing people to 
the point where they are misled, and so some of them just throw their 
hands up and walk the other way.
  Ms. Wasserman Schultz, you talked about the changes and the problems 
and the mistakes within the literature that was given out. I was about 
to say, this is the big leagues. This is the big leagues. We are the 
Federal Government. The lights are on in this Chamber not because we 
are great people, but because the people of America pay taxes so that 
they will have a government that will stand up for them.
  I have never seen a campaign sign saying I am running for Congress to 
protect the special interests, vote for me. No one said to me, 
Congressman, I want you to make sure ExxonMobil and companies like that 
get what they need to make sure their shareholders are making the kind 
of money they need to make. They sent me here to make sure they can get 
from point A to point B and so that we would watch out for their 
dollars when we got here.
  I am telling you, I am very, very concerned, Mr. Delahunt, and beyond 
partisanship, of what is happening to the majority as it relates to the 
ongoing blocking on behalf of the special interests. You can see the 
tracking as it relates to fund-raising, the K Street Project, a number 
of other issues we know so much about: the scandals here in town as 
relates to special interests getting what they want; Members being 
pushed up to the back of the wall there in the corner, with leadership 
saying, you will vote for this or you will vote against that; and the 
voting board being held open for not only several minutes but hours in 
some cases to make sure the special interests get their way.
  Mr. Delahunt, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, and Mr. Ryan, it would be 
wonderful to see the board held open so that the American people can 
get a minimum wage increase that they haven't gotten since 1997.
  Mr. George Miller stood right here and told the Speaker, it is a 
shame that we are leaving here on the 4th of July break and we haven't 
addressed the issue of millions of Americans still making $5 and some 
change since 1997; meanwhile the cost of milk, bread, health insurance 
and everything else has gone up.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Really, what it boils down to is exactly what 
you are saying, it is that they are completely out of touch.
  And I just want to pull up this illustration. We have our third-party 
validators here that really help us demonstrate what we are talking 
about on the floor each night, Mr. Speaker. It is not information we 
are making up. It is not the Debbie Wasserman Schultz encyclopedia or 
the Tim Ryan dictionary. These are facts we are laying out in front of 
the American people so that they can decide whether they want to 
continue down the path the Republican leadership has taken them on or 
whether they want to go in a new direction.
  It is clear that the Republicans have made these decisions because 
they are out of touch. I mean, let us just look at the real economic 
changes under this administration, under President Bush and the 
Republican leadership, as opposed to the bogus one that they rolled out 
today with their economic midyear review.
  You can make numbers, as they have done, look as rosy as you would 
like, but this is the real deal. Let us be clear, the Majority Leader, 
Mr. Boehner, specifically said on June 20: ``I have been in this 
business for 25 years, and I have never voted for an increase in the 
minimum wage. I am opposed to it, and I think a vast majority of our 
conference is opposed to it.'' And he said that on June 20 of 2006.
  So let us take a walk down memory lane here. If you actually are in 
touch with what everyday Americans are dealing with, then you will know 
that, of course, since 1997, there has been no minimum wage increase. 
But if you look at the price of milk, the price of milk has gone up 24 
percent. And if you actually shop in the supermarket, like I do, then 
you will know that the price of milk has steadily increased when you 
are trying to buy a gallon of it.
  How about the price of bread? That has gone up 25 percent. We are 
talking about staples that people actually pay for with their minimum 
wage increase, if they get one. Or don't get one.
  Let us take a look at the cost of a 4-year public college education. 
The cost of that has gone up 77 percent since 1997.
  Look at the cost of health insurance. That has gone up 97 percent. 
But no minimum wage increase in 9 years.
  How about the price of regular gas? That has gone up, as every 
working family knows, 136 percent. And while I am at it, I might as 
well pull out my little toy prop here, because I think it is 
illustrative.
  I think part of the problem is, it is clear by that chart that most 
Republicans obviously aren't dealing with these issues every day. They 
are not buying their own bread. They couldn't be; otherwise they would 
know that it has increased as much as it has. They are not buying their 
own gallons of milk. Maybe they have their household staff buy these 
things for them, or maybe they do it on the Internet. Or I am not sure 
what is going on.
  But when it comes to the price of a gallon of gas, this is an old-
fashioned gas tank, or gas pump. I have just concluded that it is 
obvious that the Republicans have not done anything about gas prices, 
Mr. Ryan, because most of them clearly have not used their own gas pump 
to fill their own gas tanks since they looked like this. Because 
otherwise they would be more committed to, instead of doing the bidding 
of the oil industry by passing legislation that puts money, more and 
more millions and billions in their pockets, they would make sure we 
invested, truly invested in expanding our alternative energy resources, 
so that we could reduce the cost of a gallon of gas, and so that we 
could make sure that the Congress would focus on the issues that people 
in America really care about.

                              {time}  1900

  But it is clear to me that they haven't used one of these for a 
really long time, and that is the reason they are so out of touch.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. It is the same old song, we don't need a minimum 
wage increase. Things are going just fine. The President said the 
economy is doing great and it is benefiting all Americans. Well, he 
hasn't been to my district, and I am sure he has not been to a lot of 
districts around the country where people are struggling.
  I found it interesting, over the 4th of July break where we do a lot 
of parades, and doing a parade is like taking a poll in your district 
as to how people feel. They will shout at you exactly what they are 
thinking. As you are going down and shaking hands and meeting people, 
you hear about the gas prices and the lack of vision; you hear about 
the trailers sitting in Hope, Arkansas. And you hear about the $9 
billion being lost in Iraq. This is what average Americans are talking 
about.
  And then the kicker is when the Republican Congress pushes a pay 
raise for themselves, but not a pay raise for the American people. Give 
me a break. They raise the salary for Members of Congress, but at the 
same time not at least tie it to minimum wage and say the American 
people need to be a part of this, too? Come on. What is going on?
  No matter what issue you are talking about, and this is the thread 
that ties all of this together, the Republican majority is incapable of 
executing government as stated by our friend, Newt Gingrich.
  Mr. Speaker, he said, ``They are seen by the country as being in 
charge of a government that can't function.'' He, the former Speaker of 
the House, the father of the Republican revolution, is now calling the 
leadership and the Republican Members of Congress ``they''

[[Page 13915]]

and also saying that they are in charge of a government that can't 
function.
  Whether you are talking about negotiating down the drug prices or the 
$9 billion in Iraq, or FEMA, or any other issue, I think time and time 
again they are seen as being incapable of being able to execute 
government.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. They don't believe in government. That is the truth. 
Their version of government is simply the smaller the better.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Unless, of course, it involves their personal 
life.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Exactly. Unless it involves involving the United States 
in a quagmire.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Delahunt, I don't want you to get too far 
away from ``they believe in smaller government.'' They believe in big 
government. The government has grown larger than any other time in 
recent history. Out-of-control discretionary spending, pork barrel 
spending. An article I read last night, they said that the President 
has dethroned President Johnson as it relates to spending. What they 
say and what they do, that is the reason we are here on this floor. We 
are saying ``they'' because that is what Newt Gingrich called them, 
``they.''
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I was going to make that point and you did it for me.
  But let me say what we now see is big government, big government 
promulgating and pursuing an agenda that is not a conservative agenda. 
I think we should make that distinction. It is a neoconservative 
direction because traditionally Republicans have been committed to 
responsible government, pay as you go, live within your means.
  And government is important, but there are areas where government 
does not have a role. And yet here we are today with this President and 
this Republican majority presiding over the largest expansion of 
government in American history. And the expansion of government only 
benefits a small segment of the American population.
  That is what I would suggest is causing the anxiety and the negative 
reaction that we hear when we march in those parades.
  What about this Medicare drug program? It sounds good, but it is not 
helping me. Who is it helping?
  And how do you respond to a question: Why can't you negotiate with 
the large drug companies and secure discounts like you do through the 
Veterans Administration? Why can't you secure discounts of 40, 50, 60, 
70 percent? Why can't you do that? Why can't Congress insist?
  And the answer is because the Republican leadership will not allow 
it. It simply won't allow it.
  And, Congressman, we read about the oil companies, the energy 
companies, Big Oil, if you will. We understand that in 2002 their 
combined net profit was $35 billion; that's a lot of money. Now we see 
new figures that it exceeds $113 billion. It has tripled in about 3 
years. Congressman, can you explain to me why you and your colleagues 
approve of giving taxpayer money to Big Oil in the amount of $14 
billion? Can somebody help me answer that question?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Because they care more about the special 
interests than they do about the people they represent. It is as simple 
as that. It is the only logical explanation.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Last night, and Mr. Speaker, I hate to keep 
referring back to last night for the folks who did not see us here on 
this floor, the Members who did not see us here on this floor last 
night, we talked about the chart Ms. Wasserman Schultz broke out with 
minimum wage at zero, and we talked about the White House meeting in 
the complex, and I am not going to read The Washington Post article 
again, but it happened in 2001, Mr. Delahunt. And these are the profits 
that oil companies earned, record profits. In 2002 it paid off 
immediately at $34 billion in new profits to oil companies. And in 
2003, it went to $53 billion in new profits.
  This is not something just coincidental. There was a strategy. They 
wrote the energy bill. They came up with the plan and they had access 
in the White House and here in this House of Representatives under the 
K Street Project and got what they wanted. In 2004, $84 billion. In 
2005, $113 billion.
  Now these oil companies, as far as I am concerned, they are just 
doing what they have access to do. I am more concerned with those of us 
with voting cards, Members of Congress, those of us who have an A pass 
over at the White House in the East Wing, that allow oil companies to 
go in, say what they want and get it on the backs of the American 
people.
  Those profits don't just come out of the sky. They come out of the 
pocketbook and wallets of everyday Americans. While they are reaching 
into that credit card and while they are reaching in for that cash, 
they are passing their voter registration card. It can have REP on it, 
it can have DEM on it, it can have IND on it. Whatever the case may be, 
the bottom line is it is the same amount of money coming out of those 
wallets, not because of their doing, the American people's doing, but 
because of the special interest influence over the Republican majority. 
So that is what I am mainly concerned about here.
  The last chart I want to share, oil companies, they are telling our 
friends they are trying to head towards energy independence. They will 
come to the Hill and say this is what we are doing with the money 
you've given us, the taxpayers' dollars.
  I will tell you what they are doing. I happen to be one of these 
``Today Show'' watchers, and the CEO of ExxonMobil was on there, a 
really nice guy with a deep voice and everything: ``I thought I would 
come in.'' This was before Katie Couric left. ``I thought I would come 
in and give our side of the story. We are for energy innovation. We are 
for getting oil and gas prices down.''
  This is what they are doing. This is E-85, what we call ethanol. This 
is supposed to be the alternative to help us with our energy 
independence. This is regular, special, and super plus. This is their 
deal. This is the old-school way of doing things. This is the expensive 
way of doing things. I am going to show you how this discourages you 
from getting ethanol.
  You can use a Mobil credit card to buy the three levels there where 
we invest in the Middle East versus the Midwest. This is the Midwest 
investment using corn and other resources to make it happen. But it 
says here ``Cannot use your Mobil credit card,'' period.
  Now you can walk in the store and you can buy a bag of chips, you can 
even probably buy a carton of cigarettes with your Mobil credit card, 
but you can't get E-85. The reason you can't get E-85 is because they 
don't want you to get E-85.
  So when the President is running around here talking about Americans 
being addicted to oil, well, guess what, oil is addicted to the free-
fall access that they have here in this House of Representatives and in 
the White House. They are getting their way. The American people are 
not getting their way, and it is point-blank.
  And I would like to break this thing down to where everyone can 
understand. I don't need to tell you that I am on your side as a Member 
of Congress on this side of the aisle. I think those who are paying 
attention know whose side we are on. They know based on the record. It 
seems like they are more interested in helping the special interests. 
That is what the record reflects.
  The record reflects that the special interests are getting exactly 
what they want. It is the best time in special interest days. It is not 
the best time in America; it is the best time for all of the big guys 
that wear nice ties and ride around in big cars, being driven around 
here in Washington, D.C. It is the heyday for them. It hasn't been 
better for special interests.
  There are record-breaking profits for the oil companies. It hasn't 
been better in the history of drilling into the ground for oil. And 
guess what, it is on the backs of the American people. I mean, they are 
riding the backs of the American people, riding them down into the 
ground until their faces hit the ground and they scratch their 
forehead, on the backs of the American people, a la the Republican 
majority, the rubber-stamp Congress and the White House.

[[Page 13916]]

  When you say that, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, we just have to break it 
down.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Let's break it down further, Mr. Meek. If that 
was not enough evidence, let's take a look at a Congressional Research 
Service report, which is an objective body which provides information 
to the Congress, both parties, totally objective entity, provided a 
memo to Senator Wyden last week, and that memo outlined the profits and 
revenue return for the oil companies from 1999 to now. And it 
demonstrated that the annual revenue return for eight oil companies 
increased from 2.88 percent in 1999 to 7.1 percent in 2005 while the 
return on shareholder equity went from 4.64 percent to almost 30 
percent. Cash reserves for those same companies shot up from $9.5 
million in 1999 to $57.8 million last year, and the capital investment 
that they made went from $32.8 million to $68.8 million in the same 
period.
  The bottom line is that when they say they are investing their 
revenue that they are generating into alternative oil exploration, it 
is baloney. It is absolutely not true. What they are doing is they are 
keeping their profits. They are holding onto their profits, and we are 
giving them the money by forgiving them royalty payments for the land 
that we are letting them drill for oil on.
  So who is for the American people and who is just kidding?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. We had a debate right before the July 4 break.

                              {time}  1915

  When I was a State trooper in Florida, we used to have these little 
different details around the State of Florida. I was in Sebring, 
Florida, which is Highlands County, and I was talking to this farmer, 
and he said that ``Pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered.''
  And I am going to tell you right now, the oil companies and the 
access that they have to Members of Congress on the majority side to 
give them what they want, they are getting it all right now.
  Let's look at the oil leases. They want to drill off the coast of 
Florida. Less than 1 percent, super less than 1 percent of 4,000 leases 
that they already hold, that they are actually going and drilling in 
those areas, but they wanted even more.
  They wanted more, Mr. Delahunt. They wanted more because you know 
something? They can get it. It is like a kid sitting down at the table 
and they are eating ice cream and they have a tummy ache and they have 
ice cream all around their face, and they say, give me another gallon. 
And you give it to them.
  And that is exactly what this Republican majority, this rubber-stamp 
Congress has done, everything they have asked for, because they have 
access through the K Street Project and other programs that allow them 
to see through the doors of this Chamber and have Members vote ``yes'' 
for what they want and ``no'' for what they don't want. And what they 
don't want is for the American people to be on a level keel to be able 
to push back on this feeding frenzy of not only their tax dollars and 
special interest giveaways, but to kill them at the pump.
  I mean, I see people hesitate when they get out of their cars because 
they are, like, I don't know if I have room on my credit card. I don't 
know how much is it going to cost me today. The gas stations can't even 
change the charts out front fast enough because gas prices are going 
up.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Do you know what my husband and I noticed the 
other day when we were filling up our tank? That the dimes, you know 
how when we were little kids and the pennies are what scrolled really 
fast when you were filling up your gas tank. Now it is the dimes that 
scroll as fast as the pennies used to. I mean, that is how much things 
have changed. So dimes, you know, 10 dimes, that is a dollar. Bye-bye, 
every 10 dimes, another dollar gone.
  And we have got to start moving energy policy, health care policy, 
the deficit in a new direction, which is what we would do with our 
innovation agenda. We would make sure that we commit to reaching energy 
independence through our midwestern, as opposed to the middle eastern 
dependence, through our ability to generate ethanol and invest in the 
research that would help us truly utilize ethanol as an energy 
resource.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. If I could ask our chairman from Florida, just to raise 
once more that chart.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. This one?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Right. You know what I find interesting is, you pointed 
it out. It is the first time I have heard it, that you can't use that 
particular credit card, a Mobil credit card, did you say?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Yes. It says you cannot use your Mobil credit 
card, and then it has another sticker that says, not a Mobil product. 
But at the same time, neither are the potato chips, neither are the 
cigarettes, neither is a six-pack of beer.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Right. But it is at a Mobil station?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. That's correct, yes, sir.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Okay. But it is not a Mobil product. And you interpret 
it, as I did, as a way to discourage people from using a fuel source 
that, over time, could wean us from that mideastern oil and allow us to 
rely, again, once more on that farmer, that American farmer from the 
Midwest?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Yes, sir.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Okay. That is what we are talking about. That is really 
what we are talking about.
  But you know what I find interesting? You raised it here in our 
conversation this evening. But has anybody, any chairman, if you are 
aware of any committee, standing committee of this House with this 
majority, requested or invited or insisted that the chairman of 
ExxonMobil come before it to explain to us and to the American people 
why does that product have that sticker about it when it is at a Mobil 
station? Just a simple question to educate us.
  And it is clear that if it is a question that is not being asked by 
the majority, then nothing will change. And I would suggest it is the 
responsibility of this Congress and its committees to ask those 
questions because the American people deserve answers. And we are 
abrogating, we are not meeting our responsibility of oversight when 
those questions are not posed; and they are not being asked in this 
House of Representatives at this moment in our history, and it is a 
disgrace.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Look, the retirement package, Lee Raymond, CEO of 
Exxon, $398 million retirement package. He gets a $2 million tax break. 
So it is bad enough you are already subsidizing his business to the 
tune of $14 or $15 billion.
  And this is the kind of disparity, we have the highest disparity 
between the wealthiest people in the country and the poorest people in 
the country since the 1920s, that is going like this. And the whole 
idea is to try to lift all the boats up into the middle class.
  And we were talking earlier about the economy. This is, again, third-
party validator, as we begin to wrap up. The long term, because we get 
a lot of happy talk, but the long-term outlook is such a deep well of 
sorrow that I can't get much happiness out of this year. That's a 
former director of the Congressional Budget Office that used to work 
for President Bush. It is such a deep well of sorrow.
  This country is going in the wrong direction, whether you are talking 
about oil or Medicare or the war or Katrina or whatever, and my friend 
has got his toy there. This country is going in the wrong direction and 
we want to go in another direction.
  If you like the neoconservative agenda that has been implemented, 
look around, gas, oil, retirements, pensions, minimum wage, Social 
Security, college tuition, keep the Republicans in office.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, just very quickly, the bottom line is, 
Mr. Delahunt, to your point, sir, the reason why the chairman hasn't 
called ExxonMobil in, the reason why everything that we have described 
here today is that we are on the total opposite side of their position.

[[Page 13917]]

  We are not willing to rubber stamp everything that the President and 
the administration says must happen in this Congress. We are not 
willing to rubber stamp the special interests just because they are 
contributors to a particular campaign or something.
  We are willing to stand up for the American people. And the reason 
why we have this rubber stamp down here on the floor, just to 
illustrate exactly what the Republican Congress has done, and that is 
the reason why we are in the situation we are in now.
  Ms. Wasserman Schultz.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I just think, at the end of the day, we need 
to stress that in November, when we have the opportunity to take the 
majority of this institution, we will move the country in a new 
direction.
  We will make sure that we make a commitment to reducing the deficit 
and reduce it. We will expand access to health care. We will actually 
invest in alternative energy resources so that we can truly reduce gas 
prices. And we will make sure that the American people know that their 
Representatives are here for them and not for the special interests.
  Mr. Ryan.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And even in the first couple of days, we will raise 
the minimum wage and cut college loan interest rates in half for 
parents and students. Just in the first couple of days, once we get 
this signed into law, we will recognize a huge difference. 
Www.housedemocrats.gov/30something. All of the charts that we have here 
can be accessed on the Web site. Www.housedemocrats.gov/30something.
  It has been a real pleasure.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, you did such an excellent job with the 
Web site.
  I want to thank Mr. Delahunt for coming down and joining us this 
evening. We know that he could not join us yesterday evening.
  Ms. Wasserman Schultz, always a pleasure working with you here on the 
floor and off the floor.
  What is good for the American people; and with that, Mr. Speaker, we 
thank the Democratic leadership.

                          ____________________