[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 10]
[House]
[Pages 14085-14091]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1800
                       30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. McCaul of Texas). 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, we appreciate the opportunity again 
for the 30-something Working Group to be down here to talk about issues 
that are pressing not only to the country but to those people who are 
in their 20 somethings or 30 somethings and how some of the policies 
here in Washington, D.C., are playing out in their day-to-day lives.
  The previous speakers talked a lot about making sure that we secure 
our border, and the Democratic Party has been very supportive of trying 
to fund Border Patrol and take different measures that we are going to 
make sure that we did actually secure the border. I think all Americans 
can agree that if we do not secure the border, any policy that we try 
to deal with afterwards will not be effective until we actually do 
secure the border.
  I would like to go through a list here of different amendments that 
Democrats have tried and tried and tried to get passed since 2001 that 
the Republican majority has voted against. Now, this is not a partisan 
issue. You would think it is an issue all Americans should be concerned 
about, but sometimes when you get one-party control of the House and 
the Senate and the White House, you get obstruction and this is what 
happened. These are all dated and these can all be found on our Web 
site.
  In 2001, vote 454, November 28, Republicans voted against 
consideration of an amendment that would have added $223 million for 
border security. In 2003, another one, Republicans voted against 
consideration of an amendment that would have added $300 million for 
border security. 2003, vote 305, Republicans once again voted against 
consideration of an amendment that would have added $300 million to 
enhance border security, adding border agents and inspectors along our 
border. June 16, 2004, vote 243, Republicans voted against 
consideration of an amendment that would have added $250 million, Mr. 
Speaker, in order to meet the promises that the Republican majority 
made regarding the PATRIOT Act. Again in 2005, vote 160, Republicans 
again voted against a motion to send a report back to conference with 
instructions to add $284 million. And for fiscal year 2006 and 2007, 
Republicans have repeatedly broken the promises they made on border 
security in the intelligence reform bill, the 9/11 Act of 2004, which 
included 2,000 additional border patrol agents, 800 additional 
immigration agents and 8,000 additional detention beds per year from 
fiscal year 2006 to 2010.
  Democrats have consistently tried to increase border security, and 
the Republican majority has consistently voted against it. I am not 
done. Again, 2005, vote 174, Republicans voted against consideration of 
an amendment that would have added $400 million for border security to 
meet the promises that Congress made for the 9/11 Act, again increased 
immigration agents, increased border patrol agents.
  2005, vote 187, Republicans voted against a Democratic substitute to 
the homeland security authorization bill that was designed to fulfill 
the promises again in the 9/11 Act, and it goes on and on, again vote 
188, in 2005; vote 56 in 2006; vote 210 in 2006 in May, where

[[Page 14086]]

the Republicans finally voted against consideration of an amendment 
that would have added $2.1 billion for border security.
  We have tried and tried and tried to put the proper legislation and 
the proper funding in place, Mr. Speaker, to secure our border, and 
that needs to be the message. Before we get on to any other discussion 
regarding immigration in the United States of America, if we do not 
secure that border then nothing will matter, and that is exactly what 
we have been trying to do.
  I think, Mr. Speaker, when you look around the world, and it hit me 
as I was reading the Sunday Times from this past Sunday, why it is so 
important for the United States to maintain a strong position in the 
world, promoting peace and democracy and liberty and freedom and 
capitalism, all of the basic tenets of our society, all the basic 
structures of our society. If America does not do it, it will not 
happen, and it will not happen.
  All you have to do, if you do not believe me, we like the third party 
validators here, look what is happening in Russia. We hear a lot about 
what is happening in China, crackdown, dissent, human rights abuses. We 
hear a lot about what is going on, currency manipulation, suppression 
of religious freedom, but look what is going on in, quite frankly, 
state-run enterprises that are putting American businesses into 
bankruptcy.
  We also see what is happening in Russia. Russia offered to help North 
Korea protect their nuclear weapons with technology, and then this is a 
special report in the paper, the Kremlin tightens reins on free market, 
where President Putin is having a Cabinet meeting and those major 
members of the Cabinet are also running major enterprises in the state.
  It is imperative for the United States of America to maintain this 
position of strength, and it is nice to see that I have been joined 
here by my friends from Florida and from Boston and our other friends 
who made it here, too, to have this discussion about why it is so 
important for America to maintain this position. The Democrats have 
consistently tried to take this country into a new direction, into 
another direction and get ourselves out of this wageless recovery and 
this endless occupation that we are in.
  I would be happy to yield to my good friend from Massachusetts.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Ryan for yielding the time.
  As I was waiting to come over, I had an opportunity to watch our 
friends and colleagues on the other side of the aisle speak about 
immigration, and I discovered something tonight, and that is that they 
really have a great sense of humor.
  Now, we know individual Members over there that are friends of ours, 
we enjoy them, and they have a sense of humor, but collectively they 
have a sense of humor. They were eloquent in their comments and their 
observations, and I noted that they continued to refer to the Senate 
bill, Mr. Speaker, as the Reid-Kennedy bill. Well, I guess we must be 
playing some sort of funny game because I am going to ask my colleagues 
to help me.
  Whatever happened to John McCain? Did he just disappear? I thought it 
was Senator McCain, who there is a rumor, Mr. Speaker, that he might be 
a candidate for the Republican nomination for President, that he had 
something to do with that Senate bill. Has anybody seen Senator McCain? 
Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz, have you seen Senator McCain?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I am going to have to get out the 
bloodhound.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Congressman Ryan, have you seen Senator McCain? It used 
to be the McCain bill, and now it is the Reid-Kennedy bill. I mean, who 
is kidding who?
  Now, you have a Senator, I believe, from Florida by the name of 
Martinez, Senator Martinez. I thought that he was involved in the 
amended version of the Senate bill that eventually passed. Am I 
correct?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. My understanding, Mr. Delahunt, is it was 
Senator Hagel, Senator Martinez, Senator McCain. So how this became the 
Reid-Kennedy bill----
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Do you think it has anything to do with politics?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. No.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. You are all silent. I mean, can you help me, please? I 
am just confused, Mr. Speaker. Whatever happened to John McCain? Does 
he still support this bill, this possible candidate for the Republican 
nomination for the presidency in 2008? Whatever happened to Senator 
McCain?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, well, let me just say that it is an 
honor being here tonight with my colleagues and 30-something Working 
Group, and I am so glad that Mr. Ryan was here to catch the hour. I 
notice that he has taken the high road here or the high ground here 
tonight, and it is so good to be in the well.
  But I just want to say to Mr. Delahunt, it goes back to our 
discussion the last two evenings. Our Republican colleagues on the 
Republican side of the aisle, which is the majority, what is not a 
great value of that majority and the leadership is being straight with 
the American people.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, yeah.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. So this is a consistent theme of not being 
straight with the American people. They take value in not being 
straight with the American people, need it be deficit spending, record 
breaking borrowing. I read an article just last night or the night 
before as it relates to the President saying that we have to send a 
message to Congress that we want control on spending and their appetite 
on spending the taxpayers' dollars, to let the American people know 
that we are fiscally responsible. Then the next day signing the largest 
pork barrel bill, transportation bill in the history of the republic. 
Being straight with the American people. Not a week later, but the next 
day.
  Telling us here on this floor that a prescription drug program costs 
one thing, find out a week or two later that it has doubled in costs, 
and then months later, several hundred million dollars more.
  So when we start looking at being straight with the American people, 
and I think that is the frustration of Republicans and Democrats and 
Independents, and voters, period, out there is the fact that the 
Republican majority has decided that being straight with the American 
people and leveling with them is not a value. Oil prices, price 
gouging, protecting special interests, K Street Project, a number of 
other issues that are here on this floor with the special interests 
takes the high ground, and they are protected and the American people 
are not.
  When we talk about the minimum wage, Mr. Ryan has the charts over 
there, 1997, there has not been an increase in the minimum wage since 
1997, and on that chart we have the Republican leadership saying not 
over my dead body is this going to happen, in so many words, that we 
are not going to allow it to happen.
  Here on this chart you have the minimum wage down here. Mr. Delahunt 
is familiar with this. 1997, you know, starting with the oil, starting 
with the minimum wage here, zero. Here in 2006, it has been that way 
since 1997. Whole milk has gone up 24 percent; 25 percent, bread has 
gone up; 4-year public college has gone up 77 percent; health insurance 
has gone up 97 percent; and regular gas has gone up 136 percent and 
still climbing.
  We have folks here that are saying, hey, give us a pay raise. I am 
going to tell you right now, if someone has to keep two homes and 
travel between and do all of those things, yeah, I would like a pay 
raise, but at the same time I have a conscience about this.
  Our leadership has said, and we have said that we are not going to 
take a pay raise unless the American people get a pay raise.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I interrupt only because I want 
you to read the quote from the Republican majority leader about where 
he is and his conference is on the minimum wage increase.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Well, he is a good friend of mine, but I am just 
going to read this because I think it is important. I guess this is the 
position

[[Page 14087]]

here: 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 
that a vast majority of our conference is opposed to it. That was just 
June 20 of 2006.
  I mean, obviously this is the philosophy that has been picked up all 
the way from the former Member of this House who was the majority 
leader because it has not been increased federally since that time.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, I have to get back to the point that you 
made when I yielded to you about the missing John McCain. Since tonight 
listening to their remarks about immigration, somehow they want to put 
it on the Democrats that the problem is and was created by Democrats.

                              {time}  1815

  Well, nothing could be further from the truth. I mean, if you want to 
give this Senate bill a label, the truth is, it is supported by 
President Bush. Now, can you help me? Is President Bush a Republican, 
Mr. Meek, or is he a Democrat?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I think the President and some members of his 
party are struggling to know what his party affiliation is. Because I 
know some Republicans that are very concerned about what the President 
has done and what he is doing. But he says he is a Republican under the 
line that he is a fiscal conservative, but that is not the case.
  So we do not know what to believe. Ideological wise, he is a 
Republican President, but at the same time some of the stuff we hear 
here on the floor would say that it is some other kind of party or 
philosophy that is out there.
  But to the answer your question, yes, he is a Republican President.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. So he is a Republican. So why do not we refer to it 
then as the Bush-McCain bill that is distinct from the other bill?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I personally, I am representing the 17th 
Congressional District of Florida, you know Dade and Broward County. 
But, you know, I do not want to be them, Mr. Delahunt. I do not want to 
come to this floor and start talking about what they are saying, so we 
are going to rebut what they are saying. I do not want to be them. I 
want to make sure that we are who we are.
  We are being straight with the American people. If it is the Bush-
McCain or it is the Kennedy-Martinez bill II, Arlen Specter bill II, so 
that if someone sees us here on the floor and they heard, well, they 
call it the Bush-McCain bill, they say, well, they left the Democrats 
out, and then we have just done what they have done. I know how that 
can be contagious sometimes because it happens so much here on this 
floor.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I am not going to refer to it again as the Bush-McCain 
bill.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I know you are just making a point, sir.
  Mr. Delahunt, I am so glad that you were witnessing that. I was in 
the oversight committee and I could not see it.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I know that we worked hard. And I will yield to the 
gentlewoman in a moment. That we have worked hard to secure the 
borders. That is what we have been trying to do for the past 6 years.
  I am going to refer to my notes here for a minute.
  We, as a party, have filed amendment after amendment as 
appropriations bills have come to the floor. If they had been adopted, 
there would be 6,600 more Border Patrol agents today patrolling our 
border, 14,000 more detention beds, and, Mr. Speaker, 2,700 more 
immigration agents along our borders than now exist. But those 
amendments were not adopted because the Republican majority voted 
against them. That is why. That is why we have the problem today that 
is causing this contentious atmosphere in this Chamber and in the other 
Chamber.
  But let's speak to the truth. Let's not just simply politicize this 
debate. Let's put the facts out. Who has been in charge of this 
institution for the past 12 years? It is the majority Republican party, 
Mr. Speaker. And across this Capitol building, who has been in charge, 
Mr. Speaker? It is the Republican Party, and George Bush has been the 
President of the United States since January of 2001.
  Today we have a problem with illegal immigration. Who is responsible?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Delahunt, let's play a game. Let's see 
which caucus is really for border security and which conference is 
playing ``let's pretend.'' And we will deal just with facts here, just 
with factual information, unlike what they do, which is either, A, make 
it up as they go along; or, B, say something that is not true enough 
times so that people believe it; or, C, just pick and choose the 
numbers that work best for them and represent that they are doing 
something when they are really not. So any of those three things is 
what happens on the other side.
  Here is the reality on border security, Democrats versus Republicans: 
From 1993 to 2000, under the Clinton administration, on average, 642 
new Border Patrol agents were added every year. Despite the fact that 
9/11 highlighted the need for more border security, in its first 5 
years the Bush administration added, on average, only 411 new Border 
Patrol agents.
  Under the Clinton administration, 642 new Border Patrol agents were 
added every year. Under this administration, since 2001, since 9/11, 
only 411.
  It gets better. Between 1999 and 2004, we are talking about 
enforcement, you know what, the Republicans talk a good game about it, 
we have got to increase enforcement, we have got to make sure that we 
crack down on illegal immigration, we have got to make sure that 
employers are not harboring illegal immigrants and breaking the law in 
hiring them. Well, let's see if they really mean that.
  Between 1999 and 2004, work site immigration enforcement operations 
against companies were scaled back 99 percent by INS. Subsequently, INS 
was merged into the Department of Homeland Security and now it is 
called CIS. But in 1999, the United States, this is the year before 
President Bush took office, the United States of America initiated 
fines for hiring illegal immigrants against 417 companies. Mr. 
Delahunt, in 2004, it issued fine notices to three companies. Three.
  1999, the year before President Bush took office, the United States 
initiated fines against 417 companies for hiring illegal immigrants. In 
2004 they initiated three.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. So in the space of some 5 years, enforcement actions 
against employers who were hiring illegal immigrants----
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I have another one. The Bush administration 
also has a worse record than the Clinton administration on pursuing 
immigration fraud cases. In 1995, during the Clinton administration, 
6,455 immigration fraud cases were completed. In 2003, guess how many? 
One thousand three hundred eighty-nine, 78 percent fewer immigration 
fraud cases completed.
  And then if you take the statistics that they brag about, the Bush 
administration brags that in its first 5 years it caught and returned 6 
million undocumented individuals. That is actually a drop from any 5-
year period that you can demonstrate during the Clinton administration.
  So that is what I mean when I say they just put up the statistics 
that make them look good and leave out all the other relevant 
information.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, number one, we need Mr. Manatos and 
others to get us a chart on that.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We have got to have a chart.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. We have got to have a chart. Because, folks, 
they cannot quite capture those numbers on that small piece of paper 
you have. If a Member was in his office or her office watching us here 
on the floor, we want them to visually see their track record on what 
they have done.
  It reminds me of when the President flew over the Hurricane Katrina-
affected area and came back to the White House and said, We are sending 
food and water down, and blankets, and this is just the beginning.
  Well, that was 3 days after the storm. And I can tell you this right 
now, in the heat of the summer, I do not know what good blankets would 
have done, but that is a whole other issue.

[[Page 14088]]

  The bottom line is, just because they say it, and I am taking from 
Gingrich, just because they say it, ``they'' is what Mr. Gingrich is 
calling the Republican majority, just because they say it does not 
necessarily mean that it is true. It does not necessarily mean, just 
because they say it, that it is true.
  I will share what Mr. Gingrich has called this Republican majority. 
We do not have to do it; Republicans and Americans are saying it. This 
is the former Speaker of the House, Mr. Speaker, who said in the Knight 
Ridder newspaper, Friday, March 31, 2006, ``They,'' talking about the 
Republican majority, ``are seen by the country as being in charge of a 
government that cannot function.''
  And this is what we are seeing, Mr. Delahunt. Folks coming to the 
floor seeing things that they know are altered. They are altering it. 
They are saying, well, this is the written word and these are the 
facts. But that is not good enough for me; I am going to erase it, and 
I am going to go to the floor and I am going to fool the American 
people. I am going to mislead the American people, because it is an 
everyday occurrence here by this majority.
  And the reason why so many Democrats, and I would say a very few 
Republicans are outraged by the fact, when they hear the facts, when we 
all sit in our offices and we hear altered information; we have third-
party validators. If we say the U.S. Department of Treasury came up 
with these numbers, they came up with the numbers. If we say that the 
deficit is record-breaking borrowing in the history of the Republic, we 
have third-party validators.
  Some Members come to the floor, and it is their prerogative, and if 
they want to mislead, let them mislead. But we are going to make sure 
that we continue here in the 30-Something Working Group and on this 
side of the aisle, in sharing the truth with the American people. This 
is not a place where someone comes up and says, this is a Democratic 
Party meeting or this is a Republican Party meeting or this is a Reform 
Party meeting, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, this is the U.S. House of 
Representatives, the People's House the only Chamber that you have to 
be elected to.
  You can be appointed as Senator by a governor. But you have to be 
elected to the House. There are no appointments here. So I think it is 
important that folks really appreciate what we are doing here.
  Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I want to thank you for bringing those 
numbers, and I want to make sure that we get it into a chart.
  Let me just say this real quick. I have got this chart here, just as 
an example of who we are as it relates to sharing information that is 
accurate, versus some on the majority side that are well documented for 
not sharing accurate information to not only the Members of Congress 
and the minority side and some of their own Members, but also the 
American people.
  Case in point: $1.05 trillion that President Bush and the Republican 
Congress that you see here, borrowed from foreign nations, foreign 
nations, between 2001 and 2005. $1.05 trillion have dethroned--that is 
the new word--42 Presidents before this President; 224 years of the 
history of this country, they have only been able to borrow $1.01 
trillion.
  Now, Mr. Delahunt, this is my point. This is from the U.S. Department 
of Treasury, it is right here. Folks can go on the Web Site and get it. 
Now, if we were meeting in the 30-Something Working Group and say, 
well, $1.05, well, maybe we need to, even though it happened all in 4 
years and it took 224 years for this to happen, let's say $1.09, that 
sounds better. That would be misleading the American people and the 
Congress.
  Members are on the floor, and they take what we say to be truth to 
power, that we come and we are here leveling on behalf of the American 
people. We are not here to say what sounds good or what would sway a 
certain segment of the population to feel one way or another.
  Folks woke up early one Tuesday morning from representation, not for 
someone to mislead them through statements here on this floor that are 
not accurate. That is the reason why we are in the situation that we 
are in now. Even when it comes down to the war in Iraq. Even when it 
comes down to the pursuit of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan.
  The information is not accurate that has been shared with the 
American people and that is the reason why so many individuals are 
suffering as it relates to gas prices. These gas companies and these 
petroleum companies have been allowed to come into this Chamber with 
Members carrying their will and voting the way that they want them to 
vote against their constituents.
  This is something that we all feel passionate about and the American 
people feel passionate about. And, Mr. Ryan, as I yield to you, as they 
go to the pump and hesitate before they put their debit card or credit 
card or whatever it may be into that pump about, how much is it going 
to cost me today to fill my tank up, they need to think about the 
individuals that are allowing these petroleum companies to take 
advantage of the American people, misleading the American people. And 
if I had my way and we were in the majority, I tell you, I guarantee 
you, that that practice would no longer take place. And when it does 
take place, we will come to the floor and knock it down.
  I commend Mr. Delahunt for bringing the misleading of the American 
people as it relates to information on who is sponsoring immigration 
bills in the Senate, and pointing out the fact that there would not be 
an immigration bill that passed out of the Senate if it was not for the 
Republican majority voting in the affirmative for the legislation, the 
same way as here in the House.

                              {time}  1830

  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. The same thing with the deficit. With the fourth 
largest annual deficit in the history of the United States of America, 
the President makes his way out, Madam Speaker, and touts it like it is 
some great success, like we should all be pounding our chests and proud 
of this. The fourth largest deficit in the history of the country. And 
we are borrowing the money from Japan and China and OPEC countries and 
all these other countries that give them real leverage on us when we 
try to act in a diplomatic way, whether it is with North Korea or 
Russia or China or whatever it may be.
  What would the Democrats do and what have the Democrats attempted to 
do time and time again? The Democrats have tried to reestablish the 
PAYGO rule, and we have tried to do it numerous times in the past 
several years.
  Now, what is PAYGO? PAYGO basically says that we will not spend any 
money in Congress unless we can pay for it. We are not going to go out 
and borrow the money. We have got to pay for it. Here it is, and there 
have been numerous--this is just a couple: The Spratt substitute for 
the budget resolution in 2006 failed, not one Republican voted for it, 
rollcall vote number 87.
  We are not making this up. We tried to put PAYGO rules into the 
budget process and the Republican Congress voted against it, because 
that would limit their ability to provide corporate welfare to the oil 
industry, to subsidize tremendously the health care industry. Again, 
Congressman Spratt, vote rollcall number 91, failed again for the 
budget resolution in 2005, 194 to 232. How many Republican votes? Zero.
  And I know Dennis Moore has tried to do it, Charlie Stenholm, when he 
was in Congress, he tried to do it. Time and time and time again, Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz, Democrats have tried to implement basic structural 
changes so that we could balance the budget.
  It is not a coincidence that when President Clinton was in and the 
Democrats passed the budget in 1993 and we began to implement some of 
these rules, we had a tremendous explosion of economic expansion that 
lifted everyone up; and then, in 1997, passed an increase in the 
Federal minimum wage which, actually--there is a

[[Page 14089]]

statistic here that I just love from American Progress, 4 years after 
the last increase in the minimum wage, the economy enjoyed its 
strongest growth in over 3 decades, adding 11 million new jobs. And, 
the small business employment between 1997 and 2003 grew more in States 
that had a higher minimum wage than the Federal minimum wage.
  Raising the minimum wage is good for the economy. It is a different 
philosophy, it is different, but it works.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That makes me want to pull out another third-
party validator, because this week we got to experience the exciting 
midyear opportunity to hear the President with his Republican 
leadership surrounding him to cheerlead the supposed success they have 
on the economy.
  Now, it would be one thing if we were standing up here as Debbie 
Wasserman Schultz and Tim Ryan and Kendrick Meek and Bill Delahunt and 
saying, well, that is a lot of baloney. Anyone in America looking at 
this economy and looking at this deficit would say, what is there to 
celebrate about?
  But it is not just us. This morning editorial page in USA Today had 
this to say about the midyear review of the economy that the 
administration just trotted out.
  They say, ``Forgive us if we don't break out the party hats. It is 
hard to get excited about an abysmally large deficit in the range of 
$300 billion that is somewhat less gargantuan than earlier predicted. 
Even accepting the administration's assurances that it does not 
purposefully overestimate the numbers in a Wall Street-like game of 
beating expectations, this habitual midyear crowing masks the 
seriousness of the Nation's bleak fiscal outlook.''
  Well, if that doesn't say it, all right there in a nutshell, I don't 
know what does.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. There was a gentleman at work who worked for 
President Bush, Douglas Eakin. Holtz-Eakin, former director of CBO for 
President Bush said, ``The long-term outlook is such a deep well of 
sorrow that I can't get much happiness out of this year.'' This guy 
used to work for President Bush.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And what they were doing this week is saying, 
Wow, the deficit wasn't $423 billion, it was only $300 billion.
  Now, what is clear, and what USA Today is not letting the President 
get away with, is that they began by inflating the number that they 
said the deficit would be at, so that when what happened occurred, when 
they knew it would be much lower than that, it would look like an 
accomplishment.
  Well, if they are excited about a $300 billion deficit, then I really 
want to know what their definition of fiscal responsibility is, because 
that apparently for years has been the cornerstone of the Republican 
Party's platform, that they are fiscally responsible. A $300 billion 
deficit is fiscally responsible. And then on top of that they are 
passing tax cuts for the wealthiest among us? And this is how those tax 
cuts break out for folks?
  I mean, we just passed a tax reconciliation bill just a few weeks ago 
that, if you look at how it benefits people by their income, this is 
what it really boils down to: That tax cut bill, which virtually all 
the Republicans voted for, if you make between $10,000 and $20,000 a 
year, which is around minimum wage, the one that they haven't raised 
since 1997, you get about enough back to buy a Slurpee. If you make 
between $40,000 and $50,000 a year, somewhat more than minimum wage, 
you get enough back in that tax cut bill offered by the Republicans to 
buy a gallon of gas.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Maybe.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Maybe. Because depending on how high the price 
goes, you actually might not get all that back.
  But then let us look at the folks who make more than $1 million, you 
get enough money to buy a Hummer.
  Now, I don't know about you, but I really think, if we are going to 
pass tax cut legislation at all, if we are going to give tax dollars 
back to the people, first and foremost, let's eliminate the deficit. Do 
you keep passing--I mean, tax cuts are spending, Mr. Meek. It is not 
free. We don't just print more money.
  I just took my 7-year-old son to the Mint yesterday, and I watched 
them print the money. But the tour guide didn't tell us, ``You know, 
when we run out, we just print more.'' It doesn't work that way. They 
obviously didn't go to Econ 101; otherwise, they wouldn't think it was 
responsible to do what they have been doing.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And just to clarify, if you don't mind, Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz, as you stated, we do not have the money to give to 
these millionaires to go out and buy a Hummer. So where do we get it? I 
don't know even if we have a chart here.
  Mr. Meek has a chart. I will yield to the gentleman in a minute.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I will give you my chart.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We don't have the money to give, so we have to go 
out and get it somewhere. We borrow this money from China, OPEC 
countries, Japan, to give to a millionaire so that he can get a Hummer.
  No American, I can guarantee you, believes that that is a good idea. 
That can't be a good idea. Because now we owe China money, and we have 
given the wealthiest people in our society a Hummer, and our kids are 
left to foot the bill.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Ryan, you have people in America who, the 
agony and the angst in the pit of their stomach that they have over 
their credit card debt and the things that they actually need, like the 
ability to fill up their gas tank, I mean, the churning that we know is 
going on inside of mothers and fathers across this country over how 
much debt they have versus what they have coming in.
  I guess that churning isn't going on on the Republican side. There 
doesn't appear to be any angst, there is no hand-wringing, there is no 
worrying about it. Where is the outrage? It is nonexistent. They just 
keep spending and spending and spending. The deficit keeps ballooning, 
and then they say, Yeah, the deficit isn't $423 billion, it is $300 
billion.
  Well, it is just, it is too shocking for words. And then they have 
the nerve, Mr. Meek, to call themselves the party of fiscal 
responsibility. It is a joke.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you, Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Just because 
they say it, ``they,'' going back to what Mr. Gingrich has called the 
Republican majority, he who used to be Speaker of the House but now 
calls his former colleagues ``they'' because it is foreign to him now, 
``Just because you say it doesn't necessarily mean that it is true.''
  Now, Mr. Delahunt, this is true. What is true is the fact that we 
have borrowed $53.8 billion from Canada because we can't afford to pay 
our bills, so they bought our debt. Korea, $66.5 billion. Germany, 
$65.7 billion. OPEC nations.
  Who are these OPEC nations? We hear about them on the news, but we 
don't know who they are. They are Iran, they are Iraq, they are Libya, 
they are Saudi Arabia, they are Venezuela, Nicaragua, Kuwait, United 
Arab Emirates, Ecuador, and on and on and on, Qatar, on and on and on. 
They have said, since America and the United States majority House of 
Representatives and the President wants to overspend and give away the 
money and they can't afford to do what they are doing, we will buy 
their debt. Taiwan, $71.3 billion. The Caribbean, $115.3 billion. The 
U.K. is at $223.2 billion. And you have China that is at $249.8 billion 
and Japan which is at $682.8 billion. And folks wonder, why are we in 
the situation where we are now?
  It pains me to silhouette the country, silhouette of the continental 
United States and put those countries over it, but we have to break 
this down and let the American people know this is not about party, 
this is not about what you may feel about a man or a woman representing 
you.
  This is about representation for you. Forget about what convention 
you went to last time. Forget about if you have an R or an I or an 
Independent. It is about America. And what the Republican majority has 
done effectively, they have borrowed themselves into a

[[Page 14090]]

situation so that when parents are going to schools, let us just look 
at this, here is the education budget and what we invest in education 
and this is in the billions as relates to this chart.
  This is what we invest in homeland security. This is in the billions. 
Our veterans allowing us to salute one flag, Mr. Ryan, this is what we 
invest in veterans and their health care and their needs. And, this is 
what we invest, thank you, a la the Republican majority here in this 
House, the rubber-stamp Congress and the President of the United 
States, who I do not fault personally. I don't fault the President for 
doing what he does. I fault the U.S. House of Representatives and the 
Senate for allowing it to happen with very little oversight.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I wouldn't be too complimentary. This President 
hasn't vetoed one spending bill, and he comes to the Rose Garden and 
says the Republican Congress needs to control their spending. He has 
not vetoed one spending bill.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Because you came in on the back end of my words, 
I am telling you this. The President is the President of the United 
States. At the end of his term he can no longer run for President of 
the United States.
  Guess what the difference is between Members of Congress and the 
President. We are up every 2 years. The American people can bring about 
change in November, and then a transition of power in January for 
representation. No matter what their party affiliation is, I know 
Republicans personally that I know that I represent in my own district 
and outside of my district that have a problem that we are spending 
more on the debt, paying down the debt, than we are investing in 
education, homeland security of all things, and veteran affairs.
  There are individuals right now, and I just went through the veterans 
hospital during the Fourth of July break to go visit those individuals 
that just returned to Iraq and Afghanistan and those individuals that 
fought before them, and I can tell you they are not getting what they 
deserve. They are having to wait in some rural areas because the rural 
clinic is only open 2 days out of a month.
  These are the people that have laid their blood down. These are the 
people that their friends have died beside them, and they are asking 
them to suck it up.
  Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Republican majority is allowing 
this debt to overwhelm. You can stack eight of the veteran investments 
up to the debt, you can stack lower homeland security probably 10 up to 
the stack as it relates to the $250 billion that we are paying on the 
debt. And as it relates to education, you can go two more times as it 
relates to investment in education. And, meanwhile, folks come down 
here with a straight face, Mr. Delahunt, and say that we are fiscal 
conservatives and we know how to govern?

                              {time}  1845

  The American people know it. That is the reason why the polling is 
showing they are fed up with what is going on here. They are willing to 
give Democrats or somebody else an opportunity to lead.
  Mr. Ryan, that is the reason why I said that I am not concerned with 
the President of the United States. He is going to do what he has been 
doing and will continue to do. Just like he said, if there is going to 
be a change in Iraqi policy, that is something for future presidents, 
not him. He said that as though he lives in a kingdom. This is a 
democracy.
  The only way we will be able to represent those troops and those 
individuals that deserve representation is that the American people are 
fully aware and educated with the facts, and that is the reason why we 
are on this floor, to share that.
  Mr. Delahunt, thank you for yielding, sir.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, I think you have summed it up. What irony that at 
this moment in American history the American people are borrowing from 
Communist China so that the most affluent among us, truly the most 
affluent among us, 1 percent of the population, receives a 
disproportionate tax cut. I mean, if this was written in a novel 10 or 
15 years ago, people would be shaking their heads.
  We are borrowing money from Red China so that the wealthiest 
Americans can buy a Hummer, because that is really what is happening. 
That is connecting the dots. Of course Democrats support tax reduction, 
or tax cuts, tax cuts that are fair. That is the difference. You know, 
a family that is supporting their sons and daughters in terms of their 
tuition bills for college education, there should be tax credits, there 
should be tax deductions. I mean we could list a vast number of 
thoughtful tax cuts that would benefit everybody, that would benefit 
the middle class rather than creating a society in these United States 
of those that have and those that are getting less and less every day. 
Real income, real income for that family right square in the middle of 
our population has declined, and that is why people are unhappy.
  And of course we are all supporting with our tax dollars the war in 
Iraq. It is costing us $8 billion a month, or $2 billion a week. Just 
imagine if that money was going into building roads here, to 
rehabilitating schools, to providing scholarships for American children 
to go to college, to invest in our national health system what we could 
do with that money. But we are doing all of those things not in the 
United States, we are doing it in Iraq. And we are losing the war on 
terror because of the distraction by this administration from the real 
enemy, because they wanted to go to war in Iraq and remove Saddam 
Hussein, and that is what is happening in this country.
  Yet you are so right, Mr. Meek. What do we hear? We hear, boy, there 
is an immigration problem and it is a hot button issue. And it is a hot 
button issue. But they refuse to accept responsibility. It is like they 
live in an alternate reality. It is not the real world. How did we get 
to the point where there are somewhere between, the numbers I hear are 
10 million to 12 million illegal immigrants? Because they refused to 
provide the funding for detention centers, for immigration agents, or 
for border control officials.
  When we brought them to the floor, and I know that I voted for those 
increased fundings, yet we hear from our friends today about they are 
standing up, but I wonder how they voted. I would hope that each and 
every Member of this Congress on both sides of the aisle would go back, 
review their voting record on all of the amendments that we put forth 
to increase border security and see how they voted, and then come to 
this floor and acknowledge that vote before they speak.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. If the gentleman would yield, it is not just the 
eight or nine that I listed, as you were probably walking down here, 
the eight or nine times that Democrats have offered to increase border 
security and border patrol and actually fund it and not just make the 
promise to do it. Think about the Medicare prescription drug bill. One 
of the first things we will do when there is a change of power in 
January is make sure that with the Medicare prescription drug bill we 
will allow the Secretary of Health and Human Services the ability to 
negotiate down the drug prices to save the taxpayers' money.
  Now, that is good policy from any party that is running the 
government, but our friends on the other side have refused to implement 
that basic thing. So we have tried for border security, we have tried 
to reduce the cost of the Medicare prescription drug bill, giving the 
Secretary of HHS the ability to negotiate down the drug prices, and we 
will increase the minimum wage on the first day we are here when we 
take over in January. That means a pay raise for all Americans because 
that will trickle up and push everybody's wages up.
  That was proven. When we raised the minimum wage in 1997, the economy 
grew 11 million new jobs. And in the States that had a higher minimum 
wage than the national minimum wage, there was increased numbers of 
small businesses that were created, new start-ups, and retail small 
businesses were increased. This is good for the economy.

[[Page 14091]]

  In the first week we will be here in January, we will reduce student 
loan interest rates and we will cut them in half, both for parent loans 
and for student loans. We will have a significant impact in the lives 
of many, many Americans just in the first couple of days from what we 
are going to pass out of the House: Increase in minimum wage, lower 
student loan rates for you and your family, increased border security, 
and allowing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to begin to 
negotiate on behalf of all the Medicare recipients.
  This is not brain surgery. We are not saying we have this grand 
elaborate scheme that we cooked up somewhere and we are bringing it 
before the American people. This is basic fundamental stuff. But when 
you are not so attached to the special interests, when you don't have a 
K Street Project in which there is this give and take with the big 
lobbying firms down here, you are able to govern in a way that benefits 
all of the American people. And that is what we are trying to get at.
  Let us take the country in a new direction, where we have a 
philosophy where everybody contributes to America and everybody 
benefits. We are actually looking out for the common good. We will 
provide for the common defense and we will increase the common wealth.
  You know, I go to some of these States like Virginia and Pennsylvania 
and Massachusetts, and they are all commonwealths. That philosophy, 
what do we have in common, how can we pool the common wealth to benefit 
everyone? Everyone contributes and everyone benefits. And what we have 
now, Mr. Delahunt and Mr. Meek, is a situation that has set up a system 
that has been corroded and corrupted. Now, I am not saying by 
individual Members. I think over time this happens.
  Jefferson said that every few years we need to have a revolution. 
Well, we need a bloodless rebellion to shift power out of the hands of 
the Republican controlled House, Republican controlled Senate, and the 
Republican White House. This is George Bush's Congress, Mr. Delahunt. 
Let us make no mistake about it. They do what he says. They follow his 
lead. They are afraid to stand up to him.
  He hasn't vetoed one spending bill or one bill that this Congress has 
passed out. They rubber stamp the Bush philosophy and they consistently 
agree with the President. This is his Congress.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, I think that is underscored by the fact when we 
hear them express concerns about immigration, about illegal 
immigration, we have not heard a single voice from our friends on the 
Republican side criticizing the President for the failure to enforce. 
Well, maybe one voice. Maybe he is here tonight. But no criticizing the 
President for the failure to enforce our immigration laws, particularly 
against employers.
  Imagine, three enforcements against American businesses for hiring 
illegal immigrants in the year 2004 when in the last year of the 
Clinton administration there was far in excess of some 400. That is a 
disgrace. And it is the responsibility of this Republican Congress to 
criticize their lack of aggressive oversight on this issue. The problem 
has become all of ours, but it was created by the lack of funding to 
strengthen our borders while Democrats have been putting forth proposal 
after proposal to increase those numbers.
  With that, I yield back to my friend from Ohio.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I appreciate your yielding as we begin to wrap up. 
Maybe Mr. Meek could get that chart down there and give us the Web site 
as we begin to close.
  I think you can be an amateur historian to recognize what has 
happened here; that in 1994 there was a move afoot to change things. 
Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, and there was a crew of them who came to 
this floor, like we come to this floor, and like we will continue to 
come to this floor, to talk about issues. They were talking about 
balancing the budget and they were talking about instilling fiscal 
discipline. Mr. Meek showed earlier the quote from Mr. Gingrich, and I 
read last week in the Boston Globe a comment from Dick Armey, the 
former House Republican leader, who said ``I'm not sure what this 
Congress has accomplished.''
  These are two of the main leaders of that revolution. The Republicans 
have gotten very far away from what they wanted to accomplish and, I 
think, what this country deserves. And when that happens, Madam 
Speaker, it becomes time for a change in America. I think that is where 
we are.
  Again, if you just look at what the Democratic Congress will do 
within the first couple of days that we get in, that this Republican 
Congress has failed to do in the past 5 or 6 years under complete 
Republican dominance, we will raise the minimum wage, we will cut 
student loans in half for both student loans and parent loans, we will 
implement the 9/11 recommendations to make sure we provide for the 
common defense of the United States of America, and we will allow the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate down drug prices 
for the Medicare bill to not only save the taxpayers money but drive 
down drug costs for everyone.
  We are going to invest in the small business, as our small businesses 
are trying to retool themselves. We need assistance for them with the 
Manufacturing Extension Program and with the SBA 7(a) loan program. We 
want to give local community development organizations the tools they 
need to help their small businesses, and some of these programs help 
businesses. They send out a couple of engineers to help them retool, to 
make sure that they are streamlining their businesses, to make sure 
they can find export markets. This is a positive thing, because many 
small businesses can't afford to do it.
  So we've got an agenda. Put us in, coach, we are looking for an 
opportunity to play. We have an agenda, and I think the American people 
will recognize in just a few short days what the difference is between 
the current Republican leadership and what the Democrats will do.
  Our Web site is www.House Democrats.gov/30something, and all of these 
charts and statistics are available on that, Madam Speaker.

                          ____________________