[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 18890-18896]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  1715
                      THE ISSUES AFFECTING AMERICA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan) is recognized for 
60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity, and I 
would like to thank Leader Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, Jim Clyburn and also 
John Larson, our Vice Chair, the leaders of our caucus, for the 
opportunity to come down here and speak to other Members of this body 
about the issues of the day.
  Day in and day out, as we continue to have debates here on the floor 
of the House of Representatives, one of the main topics here and back 
in our districts is the issue of the war in Iraq, the issue of the 
standing, on the stature of the United States of America and the 
opinion of those around the world of us, and the need for us to build 
coalitions across the globe in order to fight this global war on 
terror.
  We have major differences. We have had major differences, and we 
continue to have major differences in this body, in the body that is 
created by Article I, section 1 of the United States Constitution, as 
to how we should administer and execute this war on terror.
  The Bush administration has tried to implement their philosophy with 
the war in Iraq, and I must say, Mr. Speaker, that their actions have 
created more terrorists in the world, it has made the bull's eye on the 
United States bigger, and it has completely almost eliminated the 
goodwill that was given to this country from around the globe after 9/
11.
  Many Members of this Chamber can remember the editorials and foreign 
newspapers where some were saying that today we are all Americans after 
9/11. Today we are all Americans. That political capital that we had, 
that goodwill that we had, was squandered by a very divisive policy, a 
policy that was based on misinformation, was misleading.
  As the days and the weeks and the months go by, we continue to see 
time and time and time again how this administration misled the 
Congress and misled the American people. And if we had a huge 
intelligence failure on 9/11, it only makes sense to be very, very 
careful before believing the intelligence that is then being presented 
to you for the war in Iraq.
  This issue is the defining issue. The President can continue to try, 
Mr.

[[Page 18891]]

Speaker, to somehow change the topic, somehow try to change the debate 
to something that may be more favorable. But when you look at what is 
happening with our foreign policy and with our domestic policy, you 
will see that the American people are moving in a direction away from 
the President of the United States. They no longer, as Mort Zuckerman 
said, they no longer give the President the benefit of the doubt. And 
when the President loses the benefit of the doubt, the President loses 
the kind of authority and persuasive nature, basic nature of the 
office.
  So let's talk about what is going on here. This war in Iraq has made 
us less safe. It has given us more terrorists in the world. It has 
increased the polarization. And if you look just on the front page 
where we have the President being called a devil, which I don't 
necessarily agree with, being called a devil at the United Nations, 
now, we can all at least say that that kind of rhetoric, although it is 
not helpful, signals the kind of discontent that there is out there in 
the world for the United States of America.
  When you are fighting a global war on terror, Mr. Speaker, you need 
friends. You need people who are going to help you. You need assistance 
from all quarters, whether you are a Democrat or whether you are a 
Republican, whether you are a Member of the United States Congress or 
you are a member of a parliament in Europe or South America. You need 
help. We can't fight this global war on terror by ourselves, so we need 
to engage the international community. We need to engage the 
international community.
  I want to share with the American people some of what is going on. We 
are going to start with what is going on with the money.
  We can see here what the war in Iraq is currently costing the 
American taxpayers, $8.4 billion per month. It is costing the American 
people, this war on terror, $1.9 billion per week, $275 million per 
day, $11.5 million per hour. This is to fund what is going on in Iraq.
  And this has basically put us in the middle of a civil war. Only 
about 7 percent of the fighters in Iraq are al Qaeda types. The rest 
are Sunni and Shia, and they are fighting with each other, with the 
American soldiers right in the middle of the mix.
  We found out 2 weeks ago that Secretary Rumsfeld said that he would 
fire the next person who asked for a post-war plan.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, we can agree and disagree on a lot of things here, 
but when you have the Secretary of Defense say to some of his 
underlings that the next person that asks me about a post-war plan will 
be fired, that goes right to the heart of the leadership of the 
Pentagon, the leadership of the Defense Department.
  How do you go into a war with no post-war plan? This was a mistake to 
begin with. And then at the end of the day you start hearing about all 
the ties between al Qaeda and Iraq that didn't end up to be true. Then 
you find out the Secretary of Defense didn't want anybody to submit any 
kind of post-war plan at all to him, or the next one that did would be 
fired. It goes to the question of what kind of leadership are we 
getting here.
  And when you have this cowboy diplomacy that we have had for years in 
the United States of America, you know, the ``Axis of Evil'' comments, 
and ``we are going to smoke them out,'' and ``bring it on,'' and 
``mission accomplished,'' and you have major magazines saying it is the 
end of cowboy diplomacy, well, when you look at the comments of some of 
the foreign leaders, calling the President of the United States a 
devil, it doesn't seem like they think this is the end of cowboy 
diplomacy.
  So we have all got to move forward on this issue, Mr. Speaker, and we 
have got to somehow figure out together how we are going to do this.
  One of the things that the Democrats want to do when we take over the 
House in January is to start having some hearings, to start providing 
some oversight.
  If we could get that quote from Mr. Gingrich. Mr. Gingrich, the 
former Speaker, the man who led the Republican revolution in 1994, said 
in the Wall Street Journal column he wrote a couple of weeks ago that 
the only way to begin to fix this is to have an honest assessment of 
what is going right and what is going wrong in the intelligence, NSA, 
the war in Iraq.
  But if we don't have an honest assessment, if we don't have honest 
hearings, and we get briefed every now and again from the Secretary of 
Defense and it is not helpful. It doesn't make any sense. And we 
continue to go down this road, to stay the course.
  Here is what Speaker Gingrich is saying to us on staying the course. 
This is from the Wall Street Journal, September 7: ``Just consider the 
following: Osama bin Laden is still at large. Afghanistan is still 
insecure. Iraq is still violent. North Korea and Iran are still 
building nuclear weapons and missiles. Terrorist recruiting is still 
occurring in the U.S., Canada, Great Britain and across the planet.''
  This is Newt Gingrich saying that this has been a real failure in 
leadership on the war on terrorism.
  Then you come back to homeland security. You come back to what are we 
doing here at home with the ports, with the immigration issue, with 
what the Democrats want to do compared to what the Republicans want to 
do.
  If you look at what we were able to accomplish under President 
Clinton compared to what has gone on with President Bush, this is just 
border security numbers, Mr. Speaker, the average number of new Border 
Patrol agents added per year. In the Clinton administration, 642. New 
border agents per year under the Bush administration, 411. Under the 
Clinton administration, we actually increased the number of Border 
Patrol agents much more so, by 230-some a year more than the 
Republicans have under the Bush administration.
  Immigration, INS fines for immigration enforcement. In 1999, 417 
under President Clinton. Only three in 2004 under President Bush. The 
Clinton administration was much more aggressive on the Border Patrol 
issue.
  There were 78 percent fewer completed immigration fraud cases by the 
Bush administration. Look, in 1995, 6,455, and 1,389 in 2003 under the 
Bush administration.
  If you look at what we followed as the immigration debate here in 
Congress has raged, you will see that if Democratic amendments, the 
amendments that we tried to get on over the last 5 years, would have 
succeeded, there would be 6,600 more Border Patrol agents, 14,000 more 
detention beds, and 2,700 more immigration enforcement agents along our 
borders than now exist.
  It is clear that the Democratic Party doesn't only provide the 
rhetoric, but we provide the solutions necessary to try to solve some 
of these problems. Day in and day out, as we continue to have this 
debate, we can talk about it, or we can put our money where our mouth 
is and fund these Border Patrol agents. We can make sure that more than 
6 percent of the cargo that comes in and out of the United States is 
checked for weapons of mass destruction, and for illegal immigrants, 
for that matter.
  We have to do this, and we have to be willing to put the resources 
necessary into the programs. That means that there are going to be some 
difficult decisions, because over the last few years we have seen the 
budget in the United States of America go bust, billions and billions 
and billions of dollars wasted, billions given to the pharmaceutical 
industry, billions given to the oil industry, to corporate welfare.
  If we don't begin to change that, if we don't begin to put in some 
basic structural changes to the way the budget process works by putting 
in PAYGO rules, by making sure you can't spend money that you don't go 
get somewhere else so you don't have to borrow it. And that is what is 
happening right now.
  I must commend, Mr. Speaker, Senator Voinovich from Ohio, who is 
talking about waking up the Congress to say we have got to balance our 
budgets. We have to, because we have two options. We can ask the top 1 
percent of the people in this country, the top 1 percent wage earners, 
people who make more than $1 million a year, we can either ask them to 
contribute their fair

[[Page 18892]]

share, and they have benefited greatly over the last couple of years, 
and use some of that to help us reduce our budget deficits. We either 
ask them to help, or we borrow the money from China and Japan. Those 
are really our two options.
  Over the past few years we have been borrowing the money from China, 
we have been borrowing the money from Japan, and it puts us at a 
tremendous weakness when we have to go to China and ask them for help 
with North Korea, when we have to go to China and ask them for help in 
Iraq, when we have to go to China and ask them for help with Russia.
  All of a sudden we are going to the bank that is lending us money and 
asking them to help us with our diplomacy. I don't care if you are a 
liberal or a conservative, the United States has always prided itself 
on making sure we balanced our budgets.
  In 1993 in this Chamber, controlled by the Democrats, without one 
Republican vote, we balanced the budget. 20 million new jobs. Economic 
expansion that benefited everyone. Welfare roles decreased and 
declined.

                              {time}  1730

  Then we look at what this President and this Congress has done. In 
the last 4 or 5 years, this President and a Republican-controlled 
Congress has borrowed more money from foreign interests than any other 
President before him. So 224 years, Mr. Speaker, all of the Presidents 
added up did not borrow as much as President Bush has borrowed.
  So we have a solution, Mr. Speaker, that is not a Democratic solution 
or a Republican solution. It seems to be based on reality, and, Mr. 
Speaker, this is the advice that Mr. Gingrich has given on the broken 
system in Washington. He said in the Washington Post in July, ``The 
correct answer,'' Gingrich said, ``is for the American people to just 
start firing people.''
  And I think that is about the sentiment in the United States right 
now is that the American people are ready for new leadership. When you 
think about what Mr. Gingrich is saying, and you read his Wall Street 
Journal articles, and you read his books, and you think about what he 
is saying, in 1994, when the Republican Congress came in and the 
Republican revolution, and you think about what was said and how many 
times, and it was masterful campaigning, about we need to run the 
government like a business, we need to balance the budget, we need to 
make government more efficient, there is too much waste, there is too 
much fraud, there is too much abuse, and if we just squeeze the 
government, we are going to be able to get the kind of resources that 
we need to fund the programs that we need and give tax cuts and some 
relief to the American people; and if you look now, in 2006, as to what 
the Republican majority has done with that opportunity that the 
American people gave them, it is really a shame because we have huge 
budget deficits. We are borrowing money from foreign interests. The 
government is fat and bloated and bureaucratic, and we lose $9 billion 
in Iraq, and nobody really knows or seems to care as to where it goes.
  You have all this pay to play going on. You have a K Street Project 
going on, started by the Republican Party, that basically says if you 
are a lobbyist and you want us to help you, if you want the Republican 
Party to help you, you need to hire my ex-chief of staff to run your 
lobby organization, and then you will have access.
  When you look at the money, the public money that is being spent on 
corporate welfare, $12-, $13-, $14-, $15 billion to the energy 
companies, that is not a real record to be proud of.
  When you talk about running the government like a business, and you 
look at the waste and you look at the bloatedness and you look at the 
government's inability to address two, at least, of the major 
responsibilities that we all could agree on here, and that is national 
defense and emergency response.
  The national defense side, look at the war in Iraq. This great 
Republican revolution gives the power and the responsibility to 
Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and then does not take that responsibility away, 
then does not demand that they get fired, but they promote him. 
Wolfowitz is now at the World Bank, and Rumsfeld, no one will dare 
disappoint him, Mr. Speaker. This is the architect of one of the great 
catastrophes in the history of the United States of America. No one's 
been fired.
  I run into business people, hard-core conservative Republican 
business people in my district, and they say, if I was running the 
business, Rumsfeld would have been fired 2 years ago.
  This is not a partisan issue, but you have to provide oversight. It 
is not about putting your party before the country, and that is what is 
happening now, and no one will admit it, this stay the course, bury 
your head in the sand and somehow forget about the reality that is 
happening on the ground.
  When you see time and time again, time and time again, generals that 
leave and retire and then all of the sudden have a lot to say about 
what is going on on the ground, and they have a lot of opinions about 
what is happening in the administration because no one was being 
listened to, first it was not enough troops, then how it had to change 
on the ground and the lack of responsiveness. That is not running 
government like a business. That is not responding to the market in the 
case of Iraq. That is ignoring the facts on the ground to benefit 
yourself politically. That is putting the Republican Party ahead of the 
Republic, and it does not work that way.
  Sometimes you make mistakes and you get egg on your face. It does not 
mean you go get a new banner printed or a new slogan printed. It means 
you admit it, and you go forward.
  Let us have hearings. I am fortunate enough, Mr. Speaker, to sit on 
the Armed Services Committee. The brainpower on that committee, the 
kind of experience of Members on that committee, is tremendous, and it 
has been one of the nonpartisan committees for the most part. Why not 
go before this committee? Let us let all these people who have traveled 
the world, who have been involved in the war in 1990, people like Mr. 
Murtha who are on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, sit down 
with these people. Let us figure this out, and someone may get some egg 
on their face, and someone may have to be fired, but if the team's not 
performing, you may have to cut a few people. You may have to move some 
positions. You do not promote them.
  And you look and see what these generals are saying. ``Rumsfeld and 
his team turned what should have been a deliberate victory into a 
prolonged challenge,'' John Batiste in the National Journal, chief 
military aide to Paul Wolfowitz, brigade commander in Bosnia.
  Anthony Zinni: ``We're paying the price for the lack of credible 
planning or the lack of a plan. Ten years worth of planning were thrown 
away.''
  How can you have lack of planning in a major war? Again, we are not 
talking about a Rotary Club building a river walk. We are not talking 
about a Kiwanis group in our local community putting flowers in a 
courthouse square. We are talking about going to war. We are talking 
about the most deliberate act that a government can make, that we are 
going to put our soldiers in harm's way. There are probably going to be 
innocent lives that are going to be killed, and we are going to kill 
other people, and now we have these generals saying we did not have a 
plan. That is the height of irresponsible leadership.
  You look at what General Charles Swannack, Jr., said: ``I do not 
believe Secretary Rumsfeld is the right person to fight that war based 
on his absolute failures in managing the war against Saddam in Iraq.'' 
That was in the New York Times in April.
  This is not the Democratic Caucus saying this. This is not me.
  Look at what another general said: ``If I was President, I would have 
relieved him 3 years ago.'' This is someone who has got the Bronze Star 
medal with Combat V, Silver Star medal with gold star, Legion of Merit. 
These are well-respected people in the military establishment saying we 
need to get rid of Rumsfeld, which I think would be a great gesture to 
the international

[[Page 18893]]

community to say we have made a lot of mistakes. Maybe we can be a bit 
humble and say that and ask for help and say that we need to make this 
a global effort.
  If you have this kind of irresponsible behavior, this lack of self-
awareness to say that we have made some mistakes and we want to go 
about fixing them I think disrespects the process here, and quite 
frankly, it disrespects the American people. To try to pitch this al 
Qaeda-Saddam Hussein pie, when we find out that Saddam did not want to 
help al Qaeda at all, when you see that, and then yet you continue to 
ignore the facts on the ground, Mr. Speaker, it only puts us in a 
deeper hole and makes things more difficult.
  So the war side has not been executed like a business because we have 
not changed, we have not streamlined. And you look at the wasted money 
on contracts and the amount of money some of these big donors have 
made, the war profiteering, again, a slap in the face to the American 
people.
  Then domestically when you look at Katrina and a lot of the emergency 
response problems that we had, we find out again that this government 
really was not run like a business, that this emergency response system 
was not streamlined because we had Wal-Mart and we had some of these 
other businesses, they were getting water and supplies in and out. 
Their response was much better, much more efficient, much more 
effective than the Federal Government's.
  But it is the Federal Government's responsibility to make sure that 
we can address these national and natural disasters that happen in the 
United States of America. That is our responsibility. That is our 
constitutional obligation. So it is very important that we figure out 
how to streamline that. Where are the hearings? Where is the oversight? 
Where is the accountability? There is not any.
  And then when you talk about the bloatedness of government, I want to 
share with you, Mr. Speaker, and the other Members of this body about 
one of the great proposals that we have here and that the Democrats 
will offer in January when we take over this Chamber.
  Those are two bills, one by Representative Tanner from Tennessee and 
one by Representative Cardoza from California. These bills say that we 
are going to run an audit, a real audit, of the Federal Government, and 
we are going to squeeze this government. We are going to make it fit an 
information-, knowledge-based economy, and we are not going to sit back 
and just allow the bureaucracy to grow and grow and grow and keep 
feeding the beast and just say if we write a bigger check, somehow the 
problem will go away. You cannot fix it without providing some auditing 
and then the reform necessary.
  The programs that do not work, we get rid of. The programs that work, 
we fund them, and we fund them by squeezing the waste and the 
bureaucracy out of some of these other programs, and making sure that 
every dollar that we get from the taxpayer is spent well and accounted 
for.
  What I like most about these two bills is that we are going to hold 
the Secretaries of the departments accountable, and so if there is an 
audit, and recommendations are made, then the Secretary, the CEO of 
that department, will be held accountable. If they do not meet the 
requirements of that audit, that Secretary will have to go back to the 
Senate to get confirmed again.
  That is accountability. That is saying no matter who you are, whether 
you are Secretary Rumsfeld or you are Secretary of Health and Human 
Services, if the GAO audits you, a real audit, and we make sure that we 
know that the facts are right, and you do not meet the requirements of 
that audit, then you will have to go back for a reconfirmation.
  That is how you get change in these huge bureaucracies, and that is 
what the Democrats are going to do, because if we do not reform this 
government, if we do not get it ready and able to move us into an 
information-, knowledge-based economy, we are going to continue to fall 
behind because we do not have the resources. We cannot keep going back 
to the taxpayer, asking them for more money and more money and more 
money, because they do not have it.
  Now, if you look at what is going on, why they do not have it and the 
squeeze that the average people are going through now, look at this.

                              {time}  1745

  The minimum wage is now at its lowest level in 50 years adjusted for 
inflation. Real household income has declined nearly $1,300 under the 
Bush administration. So you are making $1,300 less. The cost of family 
health insurance has skyrocketed 71 percent since Bush took office. And 
if you look, the cost of tuition and fees at a 4-year public university 
has exploded by 57 percent. These are facts. These are not made up.
  So hourly wages are down 2 percent, consumer confidence is down, gas 
prices are up 20 percent, and mortgage debt is up 97 percent since the 
year 2000.
  We can't keep going back to these people and asking them for more and 
more money. And the unfunded mandates that are coming from this 
Congress down to the States and the local tax burden is being increased 
for mental health levies, for library levies, for community development 
projects, and these cities and many of them, and one of them is one I 
represent, Youngstown, another one Akron in Ohio, these cities don't 
have the resources. And if we are going to compete as a country, you 
have got to look at it like this: right now it is much different. 
Cities like Youngstown, cities like Akron, northeast Ohio, Cleveland, 
we are not longer competing with each other, and we are no longer 
competing with New York and Chicago. We are all now competing in a 
global economy.
  And as we compete in this global economy, as regions and as a 
country, we have got to recognize that we only have 300 million people 
in the United States of America. And when you compare that to the 1.3 
billion people in China and the billion people in India, you will see 
that we have got to be at the top of our game because we only have 300 
million people. And when we have many of those people living in 
poverty, and Cleveland is now rated the poorest city in the entire 
country. I see Mrs. Tubbs Jones is here who represents that area. With 
the poverty rates in Youngstown and all of these cities where 80 
percent of the kids who go to some of these schools qualify for a free 
and reduced lunch. And their nutrition levels go down in the summertime 
when the school lunch programs and those kind of things that are 
offered, breakfast programs, aren't available in the summer. So how are 
we going to be ready, Mrs. Tubbs Jones, to compete in a global economy 
when we are not making the proper investments here at home?
  I yield to my friend from Ohio (Mrs. Jones)
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. I absolutely agree with you, my colleague. And I 
want to thank you for your leadership on this issue, and I thought I 
would give you a moment to take a break.
  The real reality is that in Cleveland we have suffered so greatly 
since 2001. Since 2001, in the city of Cleveland alone we have lost 
60,000 jobs, and those 60,000 jobs were high-paying jobs. These were 
jobs of steel workers; these were jobs of people in the auto 
manufacturing area. And when you start talking about unemployment, the 
discussion always is that these folks have gone back to work. They have 
gone back to work, but what kind of money are they making? They are 
making $5, $6, $7, $8 an hour instead of the $20 that they were making. 
So they move from being part of the middle class to part of the working 
poor, where they are working every day, they are getting paid wages, 
and they are still very poor.
  Let me give you an example. President Bush talks about economic 
change that has occurred since he has been in this administration. But 
the reality is that economic change has not hit those of us who go to 
work every day.
  Let's take a look at this chart here. If you look, the minimum wage 
has not

[[Page 18894]]

increased any in 9 years, but whole milk, the cost of whole milk has 
increased 24 percent. How many families end up having to purchase 
gallons of milk, gallons of milk to take care of their babies and their 
kids and their high school students? Let's look at bread. Bread costs 
have increased 25 percent. Minimum wage still at zero.
  Let's look at a 4-year public college education, increased 77 
percent, and minimum wage is still at the same. Let's look at health 
insurance, increased almost 100 percent, 97 percent; and minimum wage 
is still a zero increase. And then let's take a look at regular 
gasoline, increased 136 percent.
  Now, right now, the gas is going down, and we don't want people to be 
fooled that gas is going down in reality, because this election is 
about to come up, and they don't want to be accused of having high gas 
prices very close to the election. But don't be fooled. Minimum wage 
still has not gone up, bread has not gone down, milk has not gone down, 
college education has not gone down, health insurance has not gone 
down. In fact, there are people who are in bankruptcy as a result of 
not being able to afford health insurance. And as a result of the cost 
of their health insurance, they are in bankruptcy losing their house 
because they have to pay the cost of health insurance.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. If the gentlewoman will yield, because I think this 
fits. If we are going to be competitive as a Nation, we need to have 
healthy citizens. All of them, not just some of them. The days of us 
just being able to compete globally by having everyone in the steel 
mill and just a few percentage healthy and working in the office are 
over, and we know that, in northeast Ohio. And so if we don't have 
these kids and our citizens healthy and educated, and provided some 
opportunity, it is going to be hard for us to compete. So that is a key 
component of us being a great country.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Absolutely. And it is a security crisis for us to 
have people who are going to work that are unhealthy. How many of you 
have ever gone to work and get to work and somebody has the flu, or 
they have something, and you get to work and you have the flu and 
people start coughing on one another and the whole office needs to go 
home because that one person couldn't go somewhere and get taken care 
of? It is a terrible situation for us to be in currently.
  I have got one more chart, and then I am going to leave it to the 30-
something Group. I am 30-something-plus, but I am going to leave it to 
the 30-somethings when I get done.
  Let's look at another increase, congressional salary increase versus 
minimum wage increase. I am a Member of Congress. I voted for a 
congressional salary increase. But I have always voted and screamed and 
hollered for a minimum wage increase, and I can't seem to get it to 
happen.
  In 1998, the congressional salary increase was $3,100; minimum wage, 
a big fat zero. In 2000, the congressional salary increase was $4,600; 
minimum wage increase, zero. 2001, $3,800; minimum wage increase, zero. 
2002, $4,900; minimum wage increase, zero. And the chart goes on. And 
as recent as this year, 2006, the congressional wage increase was 
$3,100. And you know what? Minimum wage was zero.
  Now, there are some of my colleagues who won't vote for a 
congressional salary increase. And you know why they won't vote for it? 
Because they think their constituents will say, why should you get an 
increase? But they won't vote for a congressional increase and they 
won't vote to increase the minimum wage. It is unfair; it is 
outrageous. And if we are going to be a competitive country, working 
people, people at the bottom of the rung, the working poor who go to 
work every day, who work hard to take care of their families ought to 
get paid.
  I am so glad to join the 30-something Group here. My colleague, 
Kendrick Meek, I want you to know how proud I am of you, of the work 
that you are doing in your area and on the national scene.
  These two young men have shown strong leadership. When the Democrats 
take control of the House, we are going to be in great shape. We have 
got a farm team operating right here.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I yield to my colleague, Mr. Kendrick Meek, the 
gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I thank you, Mr. Ryan.
  I can tell you, Mrs. Tubbs Jones, when I pulled in here close to the 
Chamber, I was off campus, and I saw your car there and I knew 
everything was going to be well represented here on the floor. And I am 
glad that you brought issue and put life in the lungs of what is 
actually happening here. When you talk about minimum wage, I can tell 
you right now, as it relates to the middle-class squeeze on families, 
especially as it relates to lower incomes and higher costs, these are 
rising health care costs up here. And here are the falling incomes of 
those individuals as they continue to make less and less and they are 
having to spend more and more.
  And I think it is also important, Mrs. Tubbs Jones, to point out the 
fact that we want to take this country in a new direction. That is what 
we are talking about.
  You want to talk about salary increases, Mr. Speaker. For Members of 
Congress, we are saying here on the Democratic side of the aisle we are 
not going to vote for another pay increase for Members of Congress 
until the American people get an increase.
  And we do know, Mrs. Tubbs Jones, that we had some legislation on the 
floor because we were hammering away at the Republicans on this side, 
majority, okay, on the other side of the aisle about an increase for 
American workers. What did they do? The Potomac two-step, put together 
all kind of stuff that was unpassable in the Senate, and then brought 
it to the floor knowing full well that it wasn't a well-intentioned 
minimum wage increase. We want to take it to $7.25 an hour. They know 
full well, and I am saying ``they'' because that is what Newt Gingrich 
is calling the Republican majority. That is not me, Mr. Speaker. That 
is what Mr. Gingrich said when he said ``they.''
  It is important for us to say that we are willing to stand up on 
behalf of the American people, all American people, Republican, 
Democrat, Independent, those who are not voting yet, Mrs. Tubbs Jones, 
and to make sure that they receive an increase. And what happens with 
salaried workers, let's just say there are people in our districts that 
are not individuals that are making the minimum wage, they are making a 
little more than the minimum wage. And if they make $8, $10 an hour, 
when the minimum wage goes up, then there is going to be a 
renegotiation of their salary. And these CEOs, I mean, I am not 
disliking CEOs. Mr. Ryan and I always say that profits are good, we 
think it is a good word, it is not a bad word. But when you have CEOs 
that are making more than 500 employees in a company and you are having 
individuals who are not able to cover their health care costs, Mr. 
Speaker, I think that is something we bring into balance.
  And this Democratic caucus, when in the majority, if allowed to be in 
the majority by the American people, have already said one of the first 
business actions that we would take is increasing the minimum wage, 
amongst other things.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. And the beautiful thing about it is, and maybe I 
misstated when I said that we haven't voted for a minimum wage 
increase, we haven't voted for a stand-alone minimum wage increase.
  You know how they did that? What they did is, Okay, working folk, we 
are going to take care of you. We will say we will give you a minimum 
wage increase, but it will be included in a package where we give the 
top 1 percent, a few families, $1 trillion in tax cuts. Outrageous. It 
doesn't make any sense.
  And know when the Democratic leadership takes over, we are going to 
take care of the working people, and they won't have to worry about 
anything else. They want to couch us as being tax-and-spend Democrats 
and not concerned about security, but we are going to take care of the 
working people, and they will know that we will be there for them.

[[Page 18895]]

  Gentlemen, thank you very much. On that, I am going to see you later.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you so very much, Mrs. Tubbs Jones. And I 
can tell you, it is always good, Mr. Ryan, having a member of the Ways 
and Means Committee here to be able to share some higher thoughts on 
legislation here that we are talking about.
  But, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important, I think it is very, very 
important that we shed light on what has actually happened here in this 
Chamber and what has not happened. There are a lot of pieces of 
legislation that are coming to the floor as we close out this 109th 
Congress, as we start right before the elections, before we go on what 
we call a lame duck session after the elections. Members of Congress, 
many are on jets and driving, or planes, trains, or what have you, 
going back to their districts. We decided to be here, the 30-something 
Working Group. We have another hour after the Republican hour to come 
back here to be able to share the information not only with the Members 
but also with the American people and make sure that they know that we 
are here on their behalf as Americans first.
  I think the facts are overwhelming here, but I just want to make 
sure, because whenever you identify a problem, you have to have a 
solution coming shortly thereafter or right before. So I am going to 
take the opportunity in addressing the Members and talking about the 
solution, and then identifying the obvious problem. Not a problem that 
we have identified within the Democratic caucus, but the U.S. 
Department of the Treasury has identified, the Inspector General, the 
Department of Homeland Security has identified, and that the Government 
Office on Accountability have also identified as major issues that are 
facing our country that we haven't faced in the history of the 
Republic.

                              {time}  1800

  I am saying since we have been a country, we haven't been in the 
posture that we are in right now, and I think it is important that we 
present those facts.
  We are saying on this side of the aisle we want to take America in a 
new direction. That new direction consists of six points. It goes 
beyond, but mainly six points. First, the protection of Social Security 
is so very, very important. I am from Florida, and Social Security is a 
major issue in Florida and throughout this country. As we look at 
disability benefits for American workers when they are injured on the 
job, to be able to have Social Security which they paid into, they can 
receive their full benefits. When you have retirees, one thing they can 
count on, and they probably can't count on a pension from a company 
that they have been working for or at for some 25 or 30 years, but they 
can count on Social Security because it is backed by the U.S. 
Government.
  And also survivor benefits. As we look at survivor benefits for folks 
that were working, and if they pass on, their children have an 
opportunity to educate themselves. There are some Members of Congress 
here who are presently serving who have taken advantage of survivor 
benefits that have made our country stronger in preparing these bright, 
young minds to be able to lead our country in the future.
  I am really sad to report that it continues to be under attack by the 
Republican majority and the Bush administration. I am concerned about 
that. But we have made a commitment for 2006, taking America in a new 
direction, that we will protect Social Security, as we have protected 
it from attempts by the Republican majority and the President, who 
burned all kind of jet fuel to try to ram a privatization plan down the 
throats of the American people. I think it is important that Members go 
on HouseDemocrats.gov and get our plan as it relates to securing Social 
Security.
  Looking at affordable health care, I think it is important that we 
look not only at prescription drugs, but also make sure that there is a 
major focus on health care. And there are health care professionals, I 
had a major health care insurance company come into my office just this 
week and say something has to happen.
  From the small business to the Fords and the GMs of the world, health 
care is crippling this country. We have a war in Iraq, but we have a 
war here as relates to health care in the United States. We are 
dedicated to making sure that we have affordable health care for 
children and seniors, and making sure that we use our buying power to 
secure lower prices for our seniors as it relates to part B.
  We talk about energy independence, investing in the Midwest versus 
the Middle East. We are talking about E85 and alternative fuels and 
using coal. We are the Saudi Arabia here in the United States in 
regards to coal. We have enough coal to supply the whole world as it 
relates to energy, and we can use it for our own benefits to secure 
America, and that is homeland security in making us stronger.
  We have already put out our innovation agenda, Mr. Speaker, and also 
energizing America, making us energy independent. Members can also view 
that on HouseDemocrats.gov. That is making sure that the next 
generation is ready to take over. And for this generation, broadband 
for all Americans, making sure that all Americans have access to the 
superhighway, and making sure that they have broadband opportunities.
  Making sure that we reverse the tax increase that the Republican 
majority has put as it relates to student loan opportunities. There is 
legislation filed in this 109th Congress that would reverse that and 
cut it in half; and make sure that we give tax credits to students, and 
also parents who are trying to educate their children. That is 
something that is very, very important. The Republican majority has 
brought a great increase in the cost of college. We have said that we 
are dedicated, and we have the will and desire to make that happen. 
That is part of our six-point plan.
  We have talked about the minimum wage. That is so very, very 
important. We have Members on the majority side that want to belittle 
that idea. But when you haven't increased the minimum wage since 1997, 
and say it is okay for you to give Members of Congress pay increases as 
far as the eye can see since 1997, $3,100, $4,600, $3,800, $4,900, and 
on and on and on, continued pay increases for Members of Congress.
  And don't get me wrong, it is difficult for Members who have decided 
to serve their country and have a home in their district and try to 
have some sort of a place to live here in Washington, D.C. Yes, I am 
not knocking cost-of-living increases for Members of Congress, but I 
must say that I am very, very concerned with the fact that those 
individuals that punch in and punch out every day, 15-minute break in 
the morning and afternoon, 30 minutes for lunch, we put them at an 
unfair disadvantage when we allow ourselves to receive pay increases.
  The Republican majority has done that. We have said on this side not 
another pay increase for the Members of Congress until the American 
people get a pay increase. That is something that we are standing very 
close to and making sure that we deal with it.
  When we talk about homeland security, homeland security, there is a 
lot of discussion about homeland security. We have said that we are 
going to implement not any ideas that someone in some office here in 
Congress just says, oh, I think that is a great idea, we will do it if 
we get in the majority. No. Well-thought-out, well-fleshed-out ideas as 
relates to homeland security that the 9/11 Commission has called for, 
and making sure that we implement the 10 unimplemented recommendations 
by the bipartisan Commission that went through this Congress and that 
the President spoke to, the National Security Director testified in 
front of, former and present Members of Congress, members from our 
intelligence organizations spoke before it, 
9/11 families spoke before, and survivors of 9/11. They all took an 
opportunity to testify in front of this committee, and there are a 
number of issues that are unfinished business as it relates to that.
  Some of the higher points, and I won't go over all of the 10 points 
right now, but one simple one, air cargo. What is going on with that? I 
mean, we

[[Page 18896]]

are running around at the airport giving up hand sanitizer, shaving 
cream; taking off your jacket, belts and shoes before you get on the 
plane. Meanwhile, cargo goes in the bottom of the plane, no problem 
whatsoever.
  It took the Brits to disclose a liquid explosive attempt on a plane 
that was headed to the United States of America before the Department 
of Homeland Security started saying maybe we ought to deal with that 
because that was one of the 9/11 recommendations.
  We are saying that we don't want to be reactionary. We want to be 
proactive. We want to implement the full recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission, and that is something that we are dedicated to doing if we 
have an opportunity to do it.
  Some may say, Congressman, why aren't you doing it? We are not doing 
it because we don't have the chairmanship of the committees or the 
ability to bring a bill here to the floor after going through the Rules 
Committee, to bring these pieces of legislation and ideas to the floor.
  Another thing, Mr. Speaker, and I will to go beyond the six points 
here to say that we have the will and desire to work in a bipartisan 
way. I feel personally that there are some Members on the Republican 
side that understand the importance of implementing the full 
recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.
  I don't want to go off on a philosophy that nothing major is 
happening in the United States so we must be doing something right. I 
would be on the side of recommendations by a bipartisan commission led 
by a Republican former governor who continues to give low marks to this 
legislative branch because we have not carried out the things that we 
needed to carry out.
  Mr. Ryan, before I yield back to you, I want to mention as the 
ranking member on the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, Oversight and 
Management, there was a company that was awarded the SBInet contract 
that put surveillance cameras along the border. Something that I am not 
proud of is the fact that there are two other similar programs prior to 
this program that has been renamed for the third time that spent $426 
million of the taxpayers' money. Towers were built in some areas, 
cameras did not work in other areas, it was not monitored the way it 
was supposed to be monitored, yet we awarded a $2.5 billion contract to 
a company.
  We have the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security 
who is going to be coming before our subcommittee after the election in 
November, I must add, and he will report that the Department of 
Homeland Security doesn't have the capacity to be able to take on such 
contract, or monitor the contract, in a way to make sure that we don't 
have cost overruns and making sure that taxpayer dollars are not spent 
inappropriately.
  The 9/11 Commission, one of the 10 points was that we add 2,000 
border protection officers yearly. The President sent his budget to 
this Congress and only asked for 215 border officers. You want to talk 
about Article I, section 1 oversight, making sure that we ask the tough 
questions? We are not doing it. The Republican majority doesn't want to 
do it. We are saying that we have the will and the desire to do. So 
let's make that we do it, and we are up front and straight with the 
American people.
  Mr. Ryan, as we start to look at not only the new direction we want 
to take American in, as the Democratic Caucus and as a Congress, we 
want to make sure that we identify where we are falling short.
  Mr. Speaker, all of this is very achievable if individuals were just 
to legislate and have oversight and work in a bipartisan way. 
Legislation is brought to the floor in the closing days of this 109th 
Congress to split the Congress as it relates to philosophy.
  There was a bill up last week that talked about building a double-
link chain fence along 200 miles or so of the border with no funding. 
That is like me saying, Mr. Ryan, I would like to build a monument out 
on the Washington Mall to celebrate the great victories that this 
country has had, whether they be educationally or whatever the case may 
be, over the history of our country, but I am not going to appropriate 
any money for it. But we are going to take it to the floor, and we will 
pass it anyway. Just on that, on the basis of the fact that there is no 
funding, it is like an empty suit. It is like a suit hanging up in the 
closet and no one in it.
  It is important that we come straight with the American people. If we 
are serious about protecting our borders, let's do it for real. Let's 
not pass a bill without appropriations. Let's not bring a bill to the 
floor talking about giving authorization to local law enforcement 
agencies to interrogate undocumented individuals in our country without 
any funding, because what the Federal Government is going to do is hand 
that responsibility to local sheriffs and city police officers and send 
the recommendation for the 250 Border Patrol officers to the House when 
they know we need 2,000. Let's stop handing it down to local 
governments and saying it is your responsibility. Let's man up, woman 
up and leader up and do what we have to do on behalf of the American 
people. We are saying if we are in the majority, we will do it.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. As I stated earlier, if Democratic amendments over 
the course of the past few years, the last 5 years, would have been 
adopted, there would be 6,600 more Border Patrol agents. There would be 
1,400 more detention beds, and 2,700 more immigration enforcement 
agents along our borders to help us solve some of these problems.
  It is a lot like when you invite me out to dinner and you offer to 
buy me dinner, and then you don't bring your wallet, you know what I 
mean, and then I end up paying for the dinner. It is just the same 
thing. You say you are going to provide the Border Patrol agents, and 
then there is no money there. You invite me to dinner, and then there 
is no money there. It is pretty much the same thing.
  Mr. Speaker, as we wrap up here, this is the 30-something Working 
Group. We are taking e-mails. You can visit us at 
www.HouseDemocrats.gov/30something. All of the charts that you see 
here, Mr. Speaker, are accessible on that Web page.

                          ____________________