[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 12]
[House]
[Pages 15833-15839]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Foxx). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to kick 
off the 30-something Working Group, and my good friend Mr. Meek from 
Florida, who was delayed for a minute, will be here any second to talk 
about taking America in a new direction.
  We have heard a lot tonight, and I want to agree with my colleagues 
on one thing that they said earlier, just a few minutes ago, that the 
American people know how to spend their money better than the United 
States Congress, and I agree with that.
  If you look at where this Congress has given the money, $16 billion 
in subsidies to the oil companies, hundreds of thousands of dollars in 
tax returns, tax breaks for millionaires, Madam Speaker, I agree that 
the American people would not do that, and that is why it is time to 
take the country in a new direction.
  I want to, before we get too revved up here, thank our good friend 
from Massachusetts for carrying the ball last night when the younger 
and the weaker, the fatigued other Members of the 30-something did not 
have the stamina to come here at 11:40 last night, and you showed up, 
and I yield to my friend.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Madam Speaker, well, I am glad to see that you have 
recovered and that Mr. Meek has made it. I knew that both of you were 
tired. You worked hard yesterday, but I hope that in the future you can 
just reach down, grab a little extra, and you know, be here when it 
counts. I have been very impressed with your perseverance, your 
performance over the course of the past year and a half; but remember, 
it has to be consistent. It has to be consistent. It cannot be just 
about talk. It has to be actions.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, I thank Mr. Delahunt, and I know 
you are all excited about your birthday that took place last week, and 
it is well noted not only amongst the Members but also in the 
Congressional Record. We notice that you are eligible for Medicare. We 
are excited about that. Hopefully, having you as Medicare recipient 
now, folks on Medicare will have a stronger voice in Congress because 
you can actually understand what they are going through.
  It has been 3 years and 2 months we have been doing 30-something. We 
are just so glad that we can have you as the something of the 30-
something which I will be joining you in September.

[[Page 15834]]


  Mr. DELAHUNT. I look forward to seeing you graduate to a different 
level, and I am sure that you will be able to be here for the last hour 
once you hit that magic mark in September.
  Like I was saying, we hear a lot of rhetoric on the floor here, and 
we just heard an hour's worth of good talk, good talk, and you know, I 
welcome the fact that it would appear, if you listen carefully, that 
the Republican majority is going to get serious about fiscal 
responsibility.
  I would only note that they are coming very late to the issue, 
because, I know neither of you were here in 1994, but in 1994, this 
branch, Madam Speaker, was taken over. The Republicans assumed 
majority. So let us see, from 1994 to 2006, that is 12 years, that is 
12 years and now we are faced with runaway deficits, external debt.
  We just recently received a report from the Comptroller General of 
the United States that informed the American people that despite the 
fact that they have already spent 30 billion of their dollars in Iraq, 
that the bill is coming for another $50 billion to reconstruct Iraq.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. What is that $50 billion going to be spent on?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, I think a lot of it is going to line the pockets 
of corrupt officials because that is what Mr. Walker, who is the 
Comptroller General of the United States, found. He expressed concern 
about the black market in the sale of oil.
  We all remember the words of Paul Wolfowitz who was the Under 
Secretary of Defense that the revenues from the oil reserves of Iraq 
would pay for its reconstruction. False.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Again, this is the 30-something Hour, Madam 
Speaker. This is the 30-something Hour, so we are talking about issues 
that are going to face generations to come, but I want to agree again 
with the statement that the previous speakers made, which we do not 
like to refer to, but they said that the American people know how to 
spend their own money better than the United States Congress, and I am 
all in on that statement.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. But, Madam Speaker, the Republican majority in this 
House is spending the American people's money not in America, but in 
Iraq.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And not spending it in a manner which the United 
States citizens, from Florida and Ohio or Massachusetts or wherever 
they are from, would completely and totally and wholly disagree with 
where the Republican Congress is spending their money. They are 
building hospitals in Iraq. They are building schools in Iraq. They are 
building clinics in Iraq. They are building roads in Iraq, in a 
fruitless attempt to try to win over the Iraqi people.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. And where are they getting the money?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We are borrowing the money from China, Japan, and 
OPEC countries in order to fund the war and to fund tax cuts that are 
going predominantly to people who make more than $1 million a year.
  The average American person, Madam Speaker, does not agree with that 
policy. They wholly reject that policy because it makes no sense. 
People in Youngstown, Ohio, work very hard, and they meet their 
obligations for the Federal Government. They pay their taxes, and to 
watch the United States Congress, Republican-controlled, take their 
hard-earned money and build roads and bridges in an elective war, with 
no plan, no exit strategy, no idea of how to execute it, and take their 
money and build roads and bridges and hospitals over there. I yield to 
my friend.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I just want to make sure that just because they 
say it, Madam Speaker, the Republican majority does not necessarily 
mean that it is true. You have heard me say this before. The good thing 
about the 30-something Working Group is that we come to the floor and 
not with rhetoric, not with a Democratic message that is not factual. 
We do not do that. People are looking for straightforward government, 
making sure that we level with the American people, not level with 
Democrats, not level with Republicans and Independents, but level with 
the American people.
  The American people want us to work in a bipartisan way, but only the 
majority can allow that to happen. We have legislation that is moving 
through the process that Democratic Members are not even noticed of the 
conference committees that are going on, some of the decisions that are 
being made, and we have Republican majority Members that come here and 
say, well, the Democrats, how can they say it when they have been in 
control.
  Let me just say this real quick. I tell you they did not share in the 
hour before this hour, they did not share how the Republican majority 
has made history in all the wrong ways. On $1.05 trillion borrowed in 4 
years, 2001 to 2005, from not only President Bush but the Republican 
majority that dethroned 42 Presidents, 224 years of history, $1.01 
trillion.
  Mr. Ryan mentioned who we are borrowing from. Japan, $682.8 billion. 
The American people had nothing to do with that. Republican majority, 
rubber-stamp Congress, had everything to do with that. China, at $249.8 
billion; UK, $223.2 billion; Caribbean, $115.3 billion; Taiwan and on 
and on and on.
  What they also did not say is how the Republican majority has given 
themselves a pay increase along with all Members of Congress, 
meanwhile, Madam Speaker, not addressing the minimum-wage workers in 
America since 1997. So I would not come to the floor with a straight 
face talking about the American people can handle their dollars that we 
give them or they can handle the dollars because they can handle it 
best.
  Well, guess what, I think that is a true statement because the bottom 
line is the Republican majority has shown that they cannot. Just real 
quick, I want to make sure that we spell this out.
  In 1998, Members of Congress, $3,100 raise; minimum-wage workers, 
zero; 2000, Members of Congress, $4,600 raise; minimum wage, zero; 
2001, $3,800 increase, cost of living Members of Congress; minimum 
wage, zero; 2002, zero minimum wage; $4,900 real money increase for 
Members of Congress thanks to the Republican majority; 2003, $4,700; 
minimum-wage workers, zero; $3,400, 2004; minimum-wage workers, zero; 
2005, $4,000; minimum-wage, zero; 2006, $3,100; minimum-wage workers, 
zero. And the Republican leadership has said it is just not going to 
happen. They did not want to share that with the American people. That 
is why the 30-something Working Group, why we do that.
  The good thing about this report is that we are saying on this side 
of the aisle we will not vote for an increase in Members' pay if we do 
not vote for an increase in the minimum wage. That will mean an 
increase in individuals that are making above the minimum wage because 
the American workers should be making more than the CEOs that are 
retiring with big-time retirement packages.

                              {time}  2140

  I wish I had my chart here.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Yes, I do have my chart. So that we don't have 
CEOs of major oil companies with $398 million retirement packages. A 
retirement package. And a $2 million tax break, thanks to the 
Republican majority.
  So, Mr. Ryan, when folks come to the floor and start talking about, 
and Mr. Delahunt, what the American people can do, tell you what, why 
don't we play fair? We have control of the minimum wage, Mr. Delahunt, 
we can raise the minimum wage.
  On this side of the aisle we said, number one, we will be raising the 
minimum wage. Okay, not raising the salaries for Members of Congress.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Within the first 100 hours.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Within the first 100 hours we are willing to 
move forward, and we have said it, in our new direction for America. We 
have said we are going to cut student loan costs in half, Madam 
Speaker, more than the Republican majority that is in control now.
  We have said that we are going to move in the direction of true 
energy innovation, investing in the Midwest

[[Page 15835]]

versus the Middle East, here in America with E-85 ethanol. Republican 
majority has the House now. They are not doing it.
  We have said that we are going to pay as we go and have real fiscal 
responsibility, because we are the only party in this Chamber, Mr. 
Delahunt, that can say we have actually balanced the budget. We have 
balanced the budget, with surpluses as far as the eye can see. The 
Republican majority takes over and we are borrowing from countries that 
we have issues with, like China, Japan, and the U.K. Well, not the 
U.K., but other countries that are questionable. OPEC nations. And I 
don't even want to go through that list.
  So when we start talking about these things, gentlemen, and when they 
come to the floor, and this is a free country and what a democracy, but 
meanwhile, Mr. Delahunt, we have veterans that have fought, some are at 
Arlington Cemetery for paying the ultimate price for us to salute one 
flag. We look at the services and the things that we have promised 
veterans, and this is not a Democrat or Republican or Independent or 
nonvoter issue, this is an American issue. To see veterans having to 
wait 2 and 3 months to see a specialist at a VA hospital, whether it be 
a foot doctor, an eye doctor, or just getting a simple exam, is 
unacceptable, especially when the Republican majority is giving tax 
breaks in a record breaking way to individuals that are not even asking 
for them, and when billionaires have $398 million retirement packages, 
I think it is important for us to come to the floor and share this with 
the American people.
  It is not only important, it is our obligation. So that the reason 
why, Mr. Delahunt, as I land, that it is important, no matter how late, 
if it is 11:40 at night or it is a few minutes before 10 p.m.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Or if it is at 11:30.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Or 11:30.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. And you are by yourself.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. We have worked all day, and some Members of 
Congress, Madam Speaker, are home enjoying themselves, relaxing, what 
have you, some are working in their offices right now answering their 
e-mails or regular mail, that we come to the floor, take away from what 
some may say is our personal time after we finish our regular business, 
that we come to the floor to show how we have the will and the desire 
to put America in a new direction and not only fight for working class 
folks, but making sure that those that pay their price to this country, 
which are a number of Americans but especially our veterans, will be 
treated with dignity and respect.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. If the gentleman will yield.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Yes, sir, I would yield, Mr. Ryan.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Because I think it is so important that the 
American people and the Members who are watching this here tonight 
understand that things will be completely different when the Democrats 
take over in January; that we will, within the first, not 100 days, 
Madam Speaker, Mr. Delahunt, but within the first 100 hours out of this 
House we will pass a minimum wage increase that will get us in a few 
years to $7.50 an hour; that we will, in the first 100 hours, cut 
student loan interest rates in half for parents and for students, which 
will save families $5,000 over the course of the loan.
  We are not rocket scientists. We are not saying we have some 
extravagant plan that is very elaborate and very complex. These are 
basic fundamental things. We are going to strip the oil companies of 
the $16 billion that they get in subsidies, and we are going to put 
that towards education and innovation and alternative energy sources. 
And all these things we need to do, Mr. Delahunt, in order for us to be 
competitive as a country.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. One second, Mr. Ryan. I just want to make sure 
we are accurate. It is $7.25, not $7.50, sir, that we want to move the 
minimum wage. I want to make sure that we are accurate. I know you 
mistakenly said $7.50. I would like to do $7.50, but our plan is $7.25, 
just for the record. Because we believe in making sure that even when 
we make a mistake to level with the American people.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Reclaiming my time, I yield to my friend from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I appreciate the gentleman yielding his time, and I 
want to compliment my friend from Florida, Mr. Meek, because he just 
did something that is rare in Washington. He acknowledged that there 
was an error; that there was a mistake. Because you will never hear 
that on the floor of this House.
  But the American people, I would submit, want their elected officials 
to acknowledge when a policy has failed and come up with another idea 
and be forthright about it. I mean, when I hear about all of the 
problems that haven't been solved because of a minority party, I begin 
to wonder, is there an alternative reality there?
  As I said earlier, Madam Speaker, the Republican majority has owned 
this Chamber for 12 years. Where have you been? Now you are talking 
about fiscal responsibility. And the reason you are talking about it is 
because there is 100 days to an election. That is why you are talking 
about it. And you talk about the direction of the country. You know, we 
talk about a new direction and a change in direction, Madam Speaker, 
because there is no alternative.
  If we continue to go and continue to chart the same course that the 
administration and the Republican House and the Republican Senate have 
charted for the United States, we will be in serious trouble. And let 
me just give you four statistics:
  Since the Republicans have controlled both branches of Congress in 
the last 5 years, and President Bush was inaugurated in 2001, college 
tuition has increased by 40 percent, health care costs to the American 
people have increased by 55 percent, and gas prices have increased by 
79 percent.
  But Ms. Wasserman Schultz, you know what has gone down in this 
country? Madam Speaker, you know what has declined in this country? 
Median household income. A family of four in this country, since the 
Republicans have governed here in this institution for 5 years, the 
average American family has experienced a decline of 4 percent in their 
income. On top of all the escalating costs that are eating away at 
their security, everyone in America knows that retirement security no 
longer exists. They know that their health care plan can be canceled at 
any time. They know that they won't be able to afford to send their 
children to college because they can't afford the loans. I mean, the 
list goes on and on. We have got to change the direction of this 
country.
  With that, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you so much to my good friend, Mr. 
Delahunt, and I am glad to be here with my three good friends from the 
30-something Working Group.
  You know, the answer to the question that is on everybody's mind, 
which is why do they keep moving us in this direction? Well, if you 
actually shine a light or a magnifying glass on what is really going on 
here, then it would be clear that their priorities are all wrong. So 
instead, what they do is they engage in the politics of distraction, 
like they did all during last week.
  If you recall last week, let us take a walk down memory lane here, 
did we focus on the priorities of the American people, like gas prices 
and health care and the true direction that we should be going in in 
the war in Iraq? Were those at the top of the Republican agenda last 
week?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. We talked about stem cell research.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We talked about trying to override, 
unsuccessfully, a veto on stem cell research. We did that and the 
Pledge of Allegiance bill, and we did gay marriage. We engaged in the 
politics of distraction, because the only way that the Republican 
leadership here can take the focus off of all the horrendously bad 
things that they are doing on the priorities of the American people is 
by focusing on that.
  I had a social studies text book with me last week, I am not sure if 
we still

[[Page 15836]]

have it, but last week I really wanted to bring a social studies 
textbook to the floor because essentially there is no point in using it 
any more in our public high schools. At the end of the day, the 
Republican leadership here has thrown out the concept of how a bill 
becomes a law.
  That Pledge of Allegiance bill we brought here last week? I sit on 
the House Judiciary Committee. That bill was defeated in committee, and 
yet we still saw it on this floor. When we teach high school civics, we 
teach that a bill has to go through the committee process, it has to 
garner a majority of the committee members to move on then to either 
the next committee or to the next point of reference in the legislative 
process.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And the bill stripped the courts of hearing a case 
that the courts actually ruled in favor of what they wanted.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Exactly. Let us focus on what the bill itself 
actually did, which also throws out the whole system of checks and 
balances and who is responsible for what according to the way the 
Founding Fathers set it up.
  That bill actually said, like you said, Mr. Ryan, that specifically 
because the Republican leadership here does not agree with a specific 
court decision, they decided to pass a bill stripping the courts of the 
ability to decide that question. Now, whether or not you agree that 
``under God'' as part of the Pledge of Allegiance is or is not 
constitutional, that is not relevant. We certainly shouldn't be passing 
legislation here that was defeated in committee; that couldn't even 
garner enough support on the Republican side to pass out of committee, 
and they stack the committees in their favor, to strip the courts of 
the ability to decide a question that the Republicans don't agree with.
  But, you know, the rubber stamps, the rubber stamps in this body just 
went ahead and approved it anyway. Break it out, Mr. Meek.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, you are exactly right. It 
wasn't that they didn't like the answer, because it went to the appeals 
court and the court ended up ruling in their favor, that ``under God'' 
should stay in the Pledge. But they didn't like the question, which is 
so typical down here, Mr. Delahunt.
  They don't like the questions that people are asking, whether it is 
at President Bush's press conferences or having a hearing and asking 
questions about what is going on in Iraq or Katrina or with gas prices 
or what the oil companies are doing. When you have an elected body in a 
democracy that stops liking the questions, we are losing the basic 
fundamental aspect.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman would yield.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Be happy to yield.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Just stop for one moment. The war in Afghanistan and 
Iraq has been going on for years. Every day we pick up a newspaper and 
learn about the loss of American lives.

                              {time}  2200

  Every day we hear about the rampant corruption that goes on in Iraq. 
Every day we hear about the escalating costs of the military deployment 
in Iraq. And now we know from the Comptroller General, not from the 
administration, that the $30 billion that we have already spent in Iraq 
is not enough to rebuild the country. It is going to cost us $50 
billion more. And you know what, Madam Speaker? We ought to be having a 
hearing on a weekly basis, every committee, every single committee who 
has some jurisdiction, and yet nothing happens.
  Why are we losing ground in Afghanistan? Why? But we do not dare ask 
the question.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Will the gentleman from Ohio yield?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I yield to the gentlewoman.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you very much. Because the Prime 
Minister of Iraq is here in Washington, today met with the President, 
and the whole notion of stubbornness and refusal to acknowledge that 
they are wrong and refusal to change course is so evident in the 
decision-making that goes on with this administration as far as the 
direction that we are going in Iraq.
  June 13, when the President went on that surprise visit to Iraq and 
praised up and down the Prime Minister's plan for ending the bloody 
violence in Baghdad, came back and said, The Prime Minister of Iraq has 
a plan and I am supportive of it.
  Well, today they finally acknowledged that it is not working and it 
is not effective and not that, yes, we are going to change course. It 
is ``changing the plan is under consideration.''
  Well, because we have had a shift in focus, in terms of the media's 
attention, to the crisis in the Middle East as it relates to Hezbollah, 
its attacks on Israel, it has deflected attention away from the fact 
that the actual number of deaths and bombings have increased in Iraq in 
the last month.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman from Ohio would continue to yield for 
one moment, we all know that there is much public discourse about 
whether the violence in Iraq is of such a magnitude that it should be 
called a civil war. There are no figures that are ever released by the 
administration, but the United Nations just released a report in the 
last several days that indicated in the months of May and June, 6,000 
Iraqis were killed because of political violence. Will somebody please 
explain to me, is that enough to make it a civil war? Of course it is a 
civil war going on there, Madam Speaker. Please stop using semantics 
with something that is so serious that the American people deserve to 
be continually informed.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, in this talk today, as we watched 
the press conference, the Iraqis have army and police force in one 
region that is in southern Iraq, where nobody lives. They have got 
control of it, and the Prime Minister is here with the President 
saying, See, we are making progress.
  You are not making progress. Electricity, water, utilities are all at 
prewar levels. Below prewar levels.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And instead, Mr. Ryan, we are focusing on the 
Pledge of Allegiance and gay marriage. And what it really comes down 
to, do you think that the mom whose baby is in Iraq fighting on behalf 
of our country is worrying about whether one of her children is going 
to be able to say ``under God'' in the pledge at school, or is she more 
worried that her baby over in Iraq is going to come back to her? What 
do you think is a higher priority for her?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Or that the baby, in the country that this baby was 
born into, is going to owe $11 trillion to China and Japan and OPEC 
countries.
  This is bogus. This Congress is bogus, Madam Speaker. This is the 
biggest illusion, smoke and mirrors nonsense. This is disrespecting the 
American people in the past couple of weeks. Totally has disrespected 
and insulted the intelligence of the American people.
  I yield to my friend.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you. How about this? I mean, let us go 
beyond just the mom or dad of a young man or woman fighting in Iraq. 
How about the father of four who leaves for work every day, and do you 
think he is worrying about whether someone who is gay is going to be 
able to get married or not, or is my Member of Congress voting to amend 
the Constitution to deal with that, or do you think that it is more 
likely that he is pissed that he is having to pay $3.01 a gallon to 
fill up his tank and it is going to cost him like $55 and he is 
wondering whether he is going to be able to get to work in the morning?
  Where on the list of priorities, Mr. Delahunt, do you think that is 
for the Joe and Jane average constituents that we represent?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Could I add to that?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Of course.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. What do you think an American mother feels as she sees 
this administration embroil us, embroil us, in wars, sectarian strife 
all over the world? Does she become concerned that at some point in 
time her child will be compelled to serve in the military?
  I found it fascinating reading some articles in the Weekly Standard, 
which

[[Page 15837]]

is, if you will, the gospel of the neoconservative movement, suggesting 
now is the time to bomb or strike Iran. Just another war. Just another 
war. And, of course, the original frontier in terms of the war on 
terrorism, Madam Speaker, was Afghanistan. And you know what is 
happening in Afghanistan? The Taliban is back, the group that gave safe 
haven to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, because of the distraction that 
was foisted on the American people by this administration with the 
complicity of this Congress and putting us into the quagmire of Iraq.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Delahunt, do you know how many troops we 
have in Afghanistan versus how many we have in Iraq?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes, I do.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Twenty-two thousand in Afghanistan versus 
130,000 in Iraq.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. If the gentleman from Ohio will continue to yield, do 
you know who really said it the best? The NATO commander who was taking 
over the NATO force in Afghanistan. He happens to be a British general 
by the name of David Richards. And he said this: You know, we were 
distracted. We took our eye off the prize, and that is why we have the 
problems that we have now. We became too focused on Iraq, and we forgot 
about Afghanistan, and some would have us already hitting into Iran.
  When does it end, Mr. Meek? When does it end?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Delahunt, I just wanted to say really 
quickly that it is important that we point out, you have got one, two, 
three, and I am four Members of Congress. We have friends on the 
majority side of the aisle. We see them every day. We have lunch 
together, and we go to the dining room here in the Capitol. We know one 
another's families. We travel together to foreign countries. We visit 
military bases here in the United States and abroad. Madam Speaker, 
this is not personal. This is business. And the bottom line is that 
this Congress is making history in all the wrong ways. We have a 
rubber-stamp Congress, as Ms. Wasserman Schultz pointed out earlier, 
that has rubber-stamped everything that the administration has put 
forth to this Congress, and now we are in a situation where the 
American people do not see the same vision that the Republican majority 
has.
  Now, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, before we leave here tonight, you must 
talk about immigration.

                              {time}  2210

  You must talk about immigration in a way that shows that the 
Republican majority and the Bush White House is not leveling with the 
American people.
  Mr. Delahunt, you pointed out, Mr. Ryan was mentioning 750 earlier. I 
am looking here at our plan, it says 725. He was in the middle of a 
speech, and I wanted to make sure that we were accurate for the record. 
I wanted to make sure we were leveling with the American people. I want 
to make sure that Members watching in their offices or watching at home 
are saying, even on the majority side, the reason why I can't be upset 
with those four Members on the floor right now is because they speak 
the truth; not fiction, not what we think will sound good. We are 
sharing the facts with the American people and with the Members of 
Congress, Madam Speaker.
  So that is the reason why Members of the majority side, which is the 
Republican majority that is in control, we have situations where States 
are suing the Federal Government on education, lack of funding. We have 
local communities trying to figure out how they are going to stand up 
to unfunded mandates handed down from this Congress.
  We have minimum wage workers that haven't received a raise since 
1997. Meanwhile, Members of Congress have received $3,100, $4,900, 
$3,200, in some cases $2,900, $4,100, and a proposed $3,100 this year. 
Meanwhile, minimum wage workers are sitting waiting on some leadership 
and representation in Congress.
  As we raise their minimum wage, what we have pledged to do in New 
Direction for America, Members, people that are making $8 and $9 an 
hour, employers are going to have to say, we have to give them also a 
raise, because the minimum wage has risen. So the American everyday 
worker not making minimum wage will do better under our plan.
  Saying that, Mr. Delahunt, that is the reason why we should feel very 
motivated and empowered to be here any time we get an opportunity to 
come to the floor.
  So I am excited about the fact that we are armed with the facts. I am 
glad, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, the facts she had she got from third party 
validators, not what we came up with, to share with Members and the 
American people, because we don't want members of the rubber-stamp 
Republican majority to go home and say ``we didn't quite understand 
that,'' or ``it was the Democrats.'' We have to make it abundantly 
clear that the Republicans are in control.
  Mr. Ryan, as I close, I just want to break it down like this: On the 
Democratic side, we don't have the opportunity to bring a bill to the 
floor. We are not chairmen or chairwomen of committees. We can't order 
up a congressional hearing and subpoena Halliburton and other companies 
that obviously have done things that have reached the level of, some 
may say, the criminal level. We can't do that.
  We can't have inquiries of Federal agencies. Our good friend from 
Tennessee has legislation that is talking about agencies coming to the 
Congress and asking them, what happened to $28 million that we gave you 
last year? They say I don't know. They just write it off. It is the 
taxpayers' money.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. What happened to the $89 billion in Iraq.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. What happened to the $89 billion in Iraq. This 
will never surface, Madam Speaker, unless we get rid of the rubber-
stamp Congress and we move towards a Congress that is willing to follow 
the Constitution of the United States to make sure that the American 
taxpayer dollars have the proper oversight and that we spend it in a 
way that is responsible, not just giving away tax breaks to 
millionaires and special interests when the Republican majority feels 
like doing it.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. There is just no accountability. There are 
just words. There is no action to back up the words.
  You know, if you listen to the Republicans on immigration, as Mr. 
Meek referenced, you would think that they were the hardest line, the 
hardest core, that border security was the highest priority to them. 
But if you closely examine the facts, you don't have to even closely 
examine the facts, you just scratch the surface a little bit. Take a 
look at what the real record of this hard line Republican congressional 
leadership is when it comes to border security. Let's show the American 
people who is for immigration reform and who is just kidding.
  These are third-party validators here. Here is border security by the 
numbers. We took a look and found that as it relates to the average 
number of new Border Patrol agents that are added each year, because 
the Republicans talk a good game about how many Border Patrol agents 
they want to add, well, under the Clinton administration, from 1993 to 
2000, the average number per year added was 642. You take a look how 
many were added, Border Patrol agents per year, under the Bush 
administration from 2001 to 2005, it was 411.
  That is not just a couple, that is not a handful, that is a big 
difference. 642 minus 411, I am not a mathematician, whatever it is, 
someone subtract it for me.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. 231.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. A 231 difference. That is a big difference. 
Maybe that is an anomaly. Maybe that is just isolated.
  No, keep going. Let's look at another indicator of who is for border 
security and who is just kidding. The INS fines for immigration 
enforcement, making sure that we actually crack down on illegal 
immigrants: 1999, 417. The actual statistic is in 1999 the United 
States initiated fines against 417 companies. In 2004, it initiated 
fines against three companies. Who was President in 1999? President 
Clinton. A Democrat was

[[Page 15838]]

President. Who was President in 2004? President Bush.
  We are talking about going after the firms, the businesses, that 
aggressively hire illegal immigrants. But maybe that was an isolated 
incident. Maybe it was just those two indicators that were off the 
charts, different than the policy that the Republicans talk about.
  Keep going. Let's look at the Bush administration's record on 
pursuing immigration fraud cases. In 1995, under President Clinton's 
administration, 6,455 immigration fraud cases were prosecuted. In 2003, 
under President Bush, 1,389 cases were prosecuted.
  At the end of the day, I think the American people will want to 
examine the facts, and not just listen to the words.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I think that is the perfect example. 
Those are facts. We did not make it up. Those are facts on how the 
Clinton administration versus the Bush administration handled illegal 
immigration.
  But look, if you are just the average Joe and you are sitting in the 
cheap seats watching politics in America, that is not all you see, is 
the failure to address the illegal immigration problem.
  You have watched over the past 5 years, Katrina, in which our FEMA, 
the Republican appointed members of the emergency management system 
here in the United States of America, had five or six days, knowing 
that a hurricane was coming to the Gulf States, and we got the kind of 
response that we got go.
  You look at Iraq. You look at not when the statues fell, but look 
afterwards, and you see it has been an utter and complete failure. 
Utilities and all the electricity, all at below pre-war levels. Our 
army right now, two-thirds of our army is not combat ready. Two-thirds. 
That is atrocious.
  And when you look at lack of investment in alternative energies, and 
the median wage is down 4 percent, all of the increases in college 
tuition, all these things, if you are just watching this from afar and 
you see millionaires getting tax breaks and average Americans 
struggling to get ahead and falling behind every single paycheck, you 
have to at some point say, aren't you taking the country in the wrong 
direction? Aren't you taking us down the wrong road?
  Real quick, Mr. Delahunt, whether it is domestic policy or foreign 
policy, you look at what is happening, and there is a severe disconnect 
between where the American people want to be and where the 
administration and President Bush's Congress is taking us.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I really found it interesting. I ran across this 
article today in the Washington Post, and much of what we have said is 
repeated here. The Iraq war didn't work and we didn't prepare for 
peace. The response to Hurricane Katrina was a monumental failure of 
government. You don't go to Congress to become the party that you have 
been fighting for 40 years, the spending, the finger pointing, not 
getting bills passed. Just shut up and get something done.
  Now, that was the quotes of a candidate, but it was a Republican 
candidate. It was a Republican candidate. I think that tells you 
something about going in the wrong direction, Madam Speaker.
  I find it interesting that the frustration level is so profound now 
that the former Speaker of the House that sat in the Chair that you, 
Madam Speaker, are currently occupying, summed it up like this: ``We 
just ought to start firing everyone.''

                              {time}  2220

  That is what he said. And yet we continue to go in the wrong 
direction. We continue to hear that, you know, if the Democrats would 
only help us. I mean, we do not even get invited to committee hearings. 
They don't tell us where a hearing is if it is a significant hearing, 
and I am referring to, specifically, I am referring specifically to the 
Medicare prescription drug legislation that was passed several years 
ago.
  We couldn't find the room where they were meeting to discuss an issue 
of such great consequence. I mean, it is unbelievable.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I enjoyed watching Mr. Gingrich over the past year 
or so be critical. But the funny part is that this is the 
neoconservative agenda we are living with now. It has been implemented. 
There is really nowhere else to go. They have given tax cuts to the 
wealthy. They have appointed all of their cronies. They control the 
House, the Senate, the White House, the Supreme Court. They control 
every major branch of government, they have all of their appointees in 
all of the right positions through the executive branch, and it is not 
working. They have implemented the neoconservative foreign policy 
agenda.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Do you know what we have accomplished with that? We 
have strengthened Iran.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We have increased the number of terrorists.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. We have increased the number of terrorists.
  What I find interesting, tomorrow in this Chamber the Prime Minister 
of the newly elected government will be addressing the body. And this 
is what he has to say. He is referring to Israel's action after 
Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers and began shelling northern 
Israel, but he is referring to Israel: ``I condemn those aggressions 
and call on the Arab League's foreign ministers meeting in Cairo to 
take quick action to stop these aggressions. We call on the world to 
take quick stands to stop Israeli aggression.''
  No reference at all to the actions of Hezbollah. None whatsoever. And 
the Speaker of the House in Iraq, Madam Speaker, again the exact 
position that Mr. Hastert holds in this House, uttered anti-Semitic 
remarks that every American would deplore and find unacceptable. May I 
quote what he had to say. He is referring to the terrorist acts against 
other Iraqis. And this is what he claimed, and I am quoting him: 
``These acts are not the work of Iraqis. I am sure that he who does 
this is a Jew, and a son of a Jew. I can tell you about these Jewish 
Israelis and Zionists who are using Iraqi money and oil to frustrate 
the Islamic movement in Iraq. No one deserves to rule Iraq other than 
Islamists.''
  That same speaker said this, Madam Speaker: ``The United States' 
occupation is butcher's work under the slogan of democracy and human 
rights and justice.''
  And understand that there has been a bilateral military cooperation 
agreement signed by Iraq with Iran. What have we done? We have got over 
2,500 Americans killed. Tens of thousands seriously wounded. And is 
this what we expect? No. It is not what we expect. It is certainly not 
what we deserve. And now Iran has become the hegemon in the Middle 
East.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you for sharing that, because that is so 
very, very important. It is going to be the issue of tomorrow and 
today. I mean, when we get into after the 12 o'clock hour.
  Mr. Ryan, I think it was important, and Mr. Delahunt brought up some 
comments that the past Speaker made, the person that gave birth to the 
Republican ``revolution,'' the Contract on America, I mean for America, 
and what has happened to all of that, the broken promise to America 
from the Republican majority.
  Ms. Wasserman Schultz pointed out the fact that the Republican 
majority talked about that they are tough on immigration, but at the 
same time they have been in control double digit years, and now all of 
a sudden they notice that we have an immigration border protection 
problem.
  And folks are burning Federal jet fuel flying down to the border for 
photo shots; this, that and the other that we are doing something about 
it. Bill Buckley, I don't need to talk about his credentials, because 
here in this article from Connecticut.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. That is William F. Buckley.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. William F. Buckley. It is an article that Bush 
is not a true conservative when it comes down to spending. As you know, 
he has dethroned a number of individuals. And he is noted in this 
article, which was dated July 22, 2006 as the Father of Moderate 
Conservatism, talking about William F. Buckley.

[[Page 15839]]



                              {time}  2225

  He is saying, if you had a European prime minister who experienced 
what we have experienced, it would be expected that he would retire or 
resign. This is what Buckley said about the President of the United 
States. He is allowed to do that because this rubber-stamp Republican 
Congress allows him to do it.
  I would like to yield to Ms. Wasserman Schultz, and hopefully Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz will yield to Mr. Delahunt and then yield to you, to 
talk about, Madam Speaker, what Newt Gingrich, the Speaker of the House 
of Representatives, former Speaker, is saying about this Congress.
  Ms. Wasserman Schultz, if you will indulge me, please.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I would be glad to.
  In fact, what is really interesting about these comments from Speaker 
Gingrich was that he was sitting on a panel of the American Enterprise 
Institute, a conservative think tank, with former Speaker Foley, the 
Democratic Speaker who Gingrich succeeded, and they were literally 
trading head nods back and forth from what one another was saying. And 
one of the things that Speaker Gingrich commented on was as follows:
  ``Congress has to think about how fundamentally wrong the current 
system is. When facing crises at home and abroad,'' he said, ``it's 
important to have an informed, independent legislative branch coming to 
grips with this reality, and not sitting around waiting for 
presidential leadership.'' And he said so much more than that. Mr. 
Delahunt, I would yield to you. And he went on, on the same day and in 
the same panel discussion.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, I think what he said in a quote that appears 
here, really, is the summation, if you will, of his disgust with what 
is occurring in the American political system. He described it as a 
broken system. These are his words, Newt Gingrich's words:
  ``The correct answer,'' Gingrich said, and he is speaking to the 
remedy, ``is for the American people to just start firing people.''
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Delahunt, before you yield to Mr. Ryan, he 
actually went on and I have the rest of his comments from that point. 
He actually went on and suggested that Congress rediscover its power to 
supervise the administration. And he said, ``The failure to do 
effective aggressive oversight disserves the country and disserves the 
President.''
  I mean, disserves the country and disserves the President. We are not 
talking about the namby pamby liberals that the Republican leadership 
always refers to. We are talking about the former Speaker of this House 
and the leader of the Republican Revolution. This is damning criticism. 
Damning criticism. Mr. Ryan.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I want to thank Mr. Meek for the opportunity to 
speak on this point, which Mr. Gingrich stated back in March that they, 
the Republican majority, are seen by the country as being in charge of 
a government that can't function.
  When you look at what he is talking about, and what even Mr. Gingrich 
stated the other day on Meet the Press, is that the institutions 
haven't kept up with the times. And the majority has had now 12 years 
to try to reform these institutions, and they have made them worse, not 
better. Because, in the example of FEMA where they appointed horse 
attorneys, equestrian attorneys to run FEMA, or all the graft and 
patronage that is going on in Iraq, Mr. Delahunt, which you know about 
better than us and spoke very eloquently about at 11:30 last night by 
yourself, all of these issues add up.
  When you have higher tuition costs, the paycheck you get doesn't buy 
as much, when you have higher health care costs, when you are worried 
about your pension, when you have the auto industry collapsing before 
its very eyes, you have a low minimum wage that hasn't been raised 
since 1997, you are unable to govern, as Mr. Gingrich said.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, Mr. Delahunt, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, 
this is what Republicans are saying. I mean, making history in all the 
wrong ways.
  Ms. Wasserman Schultz and I will be back at 11:32 for the last hour 
here tonight. We hope that you gentlemen will be able to join us.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. We want to congratulate our 30-something. Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz here was rated ``One of the Most Beautiful People on 
Capitol Hill.'' And that is quite an honor. It is an honor for us to be 
here with you. Kendrick and I and Mr. Delahunt didn't even make the 
list. I don't even think we were nominated. But we have all have roles 
to play, and unfortunately, Ms. Wasserman Schultz covers them all. 
WWW.HouseDemocrats.gov/30-Something. All the charts you saw here 
tonight, and we could maybe get a copy of the Hill newspaper.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. That should be put on the Web site. Congresswoman 
Wasserman Schultz.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And I thank the leader and our leadership, Steny 
Hoyer and Jim Clyburn and John Larson for the opportunity to be here.

                          ____________________