[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7816-7821]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       30 SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to come before the 
House once again.
  I would like to thank my colleagues, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and 
also my good friends from the great State of Massachusetts, Mr. Bill 
Delahunt. I am so glad Mr. Delahunt is here.
  We were talking earlier. I had to chuckle there for a minute because 
Mr. Delahunt always takes the opportunity and the privilege to share 
with us the printed word, and it is good to have him here. Mr. Ryan 
will be joining us a little later, Mr. Speaker.
  If I could just take a moment here, Mr. Speaker, to let the Members 
know that the great debate took place here on this floor, a number of 
amendments were proposed, to make sure that we pass a budget that is 
just and fair for every American. But I must bring to the Members' 
attention, because I think Members do not realize what is happening, or 
if they do realize what is happening, I want to make sure that it is in 
the Record that they know.
  We talk about debt a lot in our 30 Something Working Group, and 
talking about debt and doing something about debt are two different 
things.
  The Republican majority continues to spend in a record-breaking way 
that is bankrupting this country and changing the philosophy of this 
country, which is pay-as-you-go.
  Democrats, we are the only party in this House that can say that we 
balanced the budget. We have actually done it. We have actually had 
surpluses as far as the eye can see.
  Republicans can only talk about, well, we would like to cut it in 
half and we would like to cut it back a quarter or what have you; but I 
just want to make sure that folks understand that there was an article 
written on Tuesday of this week entitled, Another Possible Bump to the 
Debt Ceiling, $2.7 trillion budget plan pending before the House would 
raise the Federal debt ceiling by nearly 10 trillion less than 2 months 
after the Congress last raised the Federal debt borrowing limit. The 
provision is buried on page 121 of a 151-page blueprint. It serves as 
the backdrop for congressional action this week.
  I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, and I usually have my letters 
here from the Secretary of the Treasury, but I think it is important 
that the American people and the Members of this House understand that 
what they are doing to this country, record-breaking debt.
  I just want to make sure before we start off, and then I am going to 
be kind of quiet here tonight because I know that we have a lot to 
share. It is almost too much to share, Mr. Speaker, but I just want to 
share this with the Members one more time.
  We are talking about who are we borrowing from. We are borrowing from 
Japan at $682.8 billion; China, $249.8 billion; the UK, $223.2 billion; 
the Caribbean, $115.3 billion; Taiwan, $71.3 billion; OPEC nations, 
including Saudi Arabia and a number of nations that we have issues 
with, $67.8 billion; Germany, $65.7 billion; Korea, $66.5 billion; 
Canada, $53.8 billion and climbing.
  If we do not stop this Republican majority from continuing to raise 
this debt ceiling and burying it within the Federal budget on what they 
believe their Members have to vote for, and this budget vote has been 
postponed and postponed and postponed, not because, Mr. Speaker, the 
Republican majority did not have time to deal with it; they just did 
not want to do to their constituents what the majority wants them to 
do.
  As long as we are here and we have breath in our bodies, we are going 
to share with the Members of this House that we will not allow this to 
be a ``back room with the lights off in the middle of the night'' 
proposition for the American people that they do not have any choices 
in, but the special interests do.
  I just in closing, again, history making, this is not the Kendrick 
Meek report, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Bill Delahunt or Tim Ryan 
report. This is facts, not fiction. The U.S. Department of the Treasury 
backs this up: $1.01 trillion borrowed in 224 years, since 1776 to the 
year 2000, versus $1.05 trillion that was borrowed from 2001 to 2005 
and counting from the President and the Republican majority Congress.
  We are saying that we want to pay as we go. We are saying that we 
want to make sure that we are fiscally responsible. And we are saying 
that we are not going to allow the Republican majority to be able to 
have these countries look at America in a different way than they were 
prior to this administration and prior to this Republican Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman 
Schultz).
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, thank you.
  It is so great to be here with my 30 Something colleagues once again; 
and just to take off from where you left off, we try to help illuminate 
things during our hours and underscore for the American people, Mr. 
Speaker, what is really going on inside this Chamber and inside this 
Capitol and the debt, the colossal debt, that we are literally caving 
in under.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Just like that.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Just like our poster here, the colossal debt 
that we are caving in under that Mr. Meek just described.
  Sometimes it is hard to get your arms around, or mind around, what 1 
billion is. One billion is a very big number. So we took the time to 
analyze or break down for folks the things that are analogous to 1 
billion, and let me just walk people through that, Mr. Speaker, and 
this might be helpful for you, Mr. Speaker, as well.
  The question is, how much is $1 billion really. Well, for example, 1 
billion hours ago, humans were making their first tools in the Stone 
Age. One billion seconds ago, it was 1975 and the last American troops 
had pulled out of Vietnam.
  Gee, I guess we sort of wish we were 20 years in the future and we 
could be saying that about the troops in Iraq, but I digress.
  One billion minutes ago, it was 104 A.D. and the Chinese had first 
invented paper, and $1 billion ago in Republican terms, Mr. Speaker, 
that was only 3 hours and 32 minutes at the rate that our government 
spends money.
  So when you talk about people who live paycheck to paycheck, people 
who are struggling to make ends meet, people who are desperately trying 
to not live off of their credit cards, it does not appear to matter to 
the Republican leadership here, Mr. Speaker.

                              {time}  2030

  My colleagues, it really is astonishing to me. I have only been here 
14 months. Both of you are more senior than me, but I am really 
surprised that some people actually believe what the Republican 
leadership says when they say they are the party of less government and 
more fiscal responsibility. Is an $8 trillion debt fiscally 
responsible? Is being in debt to OPEC responsible? I mean, where is the 
fiscal responsibility in that?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if I can, I ran across a column in one of 
the publications that circulates throughout here on Capitol Hill. It 
was actually in the Roll Call newspaper. It was this past Monday when 
it was published.
  The headline is entitled, ``GOP Banking on Economy.''

[[Page 7817]]

  You know, it is no secret that a growing majority of the American 
people believe that the country is headed in the wrong direction. The 
last poll that I saw just recently exceeded 70 percent of the American 
people believe that the country is going in the wrong direction. I 
happen to share that particular view.
  It seems to perplex some of our friends and colleagues on the 
Republican side of the aisle that while the economy in terms of macro 
statistics is growing, that they are receiving no political benefit. I 
noted that the House majority whip from Missouri, who happens to be a 
friend of mine and someone for whom I have great respect, had this to 
say, ``I spend a lot of time wondering about this myself. Why is it 
that with this incredibly strong economy people do not embrace the 
economy with the same kind of confidence that everything indicates that 
they should.'' That is what the House majority whip Roy Blunt said in 
an interviewed taped by C-SPAN this past weekend.
  Let me offer my own explanation.
  It is because the benefit of the booming economy is extremely 
limited. The vast majority of Americans are not benefiting from the 
economic growth that is occurring in our country. I think that is 
reflected in what happened here today in terms of the debate about the 
new tax cuts that are being proposed, Mr. Speaker, by our Republican 
colleagues and friends.
  Let me just cite some interesting statistics. If you earn between 
$20,000 and $30,000, the benefit that you will receive from the tax cut 
that applies to dividends and capital gains amounts to $9 on the 
average. So as a result of today's work by this Bush Congress, if you 
earn between $20,000 and $30,000 you received a tax break of $9.
  If you earn between $50,000 and $75,000, you got a tax break of $110. 
But, Mr. Speaker, if you earned more than $1 million, you get a check 
from Uncle Sam as a tax refund of $42,000. Let us just reflect on that 
for a moment. Who is benefiting from the policies of the Bush 
administration and the Bush administration Congress? Let me put this in 
other words, in different terms.
  If you took what happened here today, what this Congress did today, 
77 percent of American families, families now, had their taxes reduced 
by $30. That is 77 percent of American families had their tax bill 
reduced by $30 at the same time, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Meek, Mr. Speaker, 0.02 
percent of American families got a tax break of $42,000.
  So what is happening? What we are doing is we are creating an America 
that is beginning to look like a banana republic. It would appear that 
those that have and really have, not just have a lot but have a 
stupendous amount of wealth, are receiving a totally disproportionate 
share of the prosperity that the country seems to be enjoying. But 77 
percent are getting $30.
  And to stop and think today, that tax cut, Mr. Speaker, amounted to 
$70 billion. And you know what, Mr. Speaker, to give that 0.02 percent 
$42,000, we are going to borrow, we are going to borrow that $70 
billion and we are going to borrow it from China, from OPEC, from 
Japan, from Korea, and from Canada.
  We are going to borrow, and you know what, Mr. Speaker? We are going 
to add to that deficit, and that is why people who are Republicans and 
conservative Republicans, like our former colleague Pat Toomey, who is 
the President of the Club for Growth, is saying things like this in the 
Philadelphia Inquirer, ``There is a very high level of frustration and 
disappointment among rank-and-file Republicans when they see a 
Republican-controlled Congress engaging in an obscene level of wasteful 
spending, and it is really coming home to roost.''
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. He says more, right?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes. That is not all he said, Mr. Speaker.
  Again, this is Mr. Toomey, President of Club for Growth, a 
conservative advocacy group, who served in this Congress, Mr. Speaker, 
and this is what he is saying about the Republican Congress: 
``Republicans have abandoned the principles of limited government and 
fiscal discipline that historically have united Republicans and 
energized the Republican base. Too many Republicans have gotten too 
comfortable in office.''
  That is what Pat Toomey, a former colleague, a member of this 
Congress a short time ago, is now saying about the Bush Congress.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the gentleman and I agree 
with former Congressman Toomey. As you made the point about the 
wealthiest, the millionaires getting $42,000 back and the missed 
priorities and the schoolteacher in Ohio who is making $35,000 or 
$40,000 and getting just a few dollars back, we are not saying that the 
wealthy person does not make a certain contribution to society because 
they do. Make profits and make money, we want you to. But there is just 
as much value to our society by the teacher.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. We are saying let us be fair. Fairness here.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And who actually needs the tax cut is that person 
who is a home health care aide, driving around, and the gas prices are 
high and everything else.
  Mr. Delahunt talked about borrowing the money to do this and who we 
are borrowing it from. This is from 2001 to 2005, of the $1.18 trillion 
in debt that the Bush presidency, the Bush House and Bush Senate racked 
up, $1.16 trillion of the $1.18 trillion came from foreign nations. We 
are not even borrowing the money from National Citibank or some bank in 
our own country, we are borrowing this money from the Chinese 
government or the Japanese government. That at the end of the day makes 
us weak.
  I want to show one more chart here. This is the public debt held by 
China. It has quadrupled under Bush. It was $62 billion in 2000, and it 
is $257 billion in 2005.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I asked this 
today in a hearing in the International Relations Committee of 
Secretary Zoellick, and he indicated that now the debt is $262 billion 
that is owed by the United States Government to the Chinese.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And so if you are sitting in a community in Ohio or 
in the industrial Midwest or in New England or somewhere across this 
country where the jobs you have are being lost to China, and then you 
know that your government at the same time is borrowing money from 
China, and the Chinese government is using that money to undermine 
American business in the United States of America and we continue to 
borrow it, and that is just in the past year or so, another $5 billion 
has been borrowed from the Chinese. This is going on again and again.
  The reason I bring this up is today we expanded this. We increased 
this even more. The $42,000 that we are going to give a millionaire, we 
do not have it.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, I think we are going to need to 
do these charts on dry erase boards from now on because it changes so 
rapidly and in the wrong direction that we are wasting public resources 
by printing them on unchangeable paper.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Right. The money we pay in interest every year, 
$230 billion a year, we pay in interest on the debt. That is interest 
on the debt. Compared to education and homeland security and veterans, 
this is the number we are paying on interest. This is reckless 
spending. This is a Congress that has run away with the checkbook. They 
are taking the country off a cliff financially without any regard for 
what this is costing future generations.
  This group started to talk about optimism and what the future was 
going to look like.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but take this rubber 
stamp out. How did we get to where we are right now? It is not because 
of good policy making. It was not good policy making. It was because 
the Republican Congress, Mr. Speaker, has said, Mr. President, whatever 
you want, regardless of how bad it may make our fiscal situation in 
this country, we are willing to endorse it.

                              {time}  2045

  Today, in the Washington Post, folks want to talk about, if they 
think Mr.

[[Page 7818]]

Delahunt just came up with these numbers, go on to Washingtonpost.com 
and they are right here, as it relates to what you will get if this 
budget passes the way the Republican administration wants it to pass.
  And I think it is important that people realize that it is not the 
people that you send here to Washington, D.C., to represent you; it is 
the White House. Still, the Republican Congress is saying, even at low 
approval ratings, Mr. President, we are with you all the way. Whatever 
you want, we are willing to rubber-stamp it and we are willing to 
follow your lead, even if it is in the wrong direction, even if gas 
prices are higher now, even if we are borrowing record breaking, we are 
making history in borrowing $1.05 trillion and counting from foreign 
nations, that is okay.
  Even if it comes down to us defending a special oil deal, and then we 
had it turn around on you, but even at the beginning, allowing it to 
happen, we are with you all the way. Mr. President, whatever you say, 
we are going to rubber-stamp it.
  So I think it is important, when you think of this Republican 
majority, Mr. Speaker, and I think when a number of our Members look in 
the mirror, especially on the other side of the aisle, a rubber stamp 
has to be somewhere in the background because that is what has 
happened, and that is what has got us in the situation that we are in 
now, and the American people see it, crystal clear.
  This is not a Democratic issue. I am going to yield to you in one 
second. This is not a Democratic issue. You can't blame the Democrats 
on what the present situation is.
  Mr. Speaker, I always say that bipartisanship is based on the 
leadership of the institution. The leadership of the institution has 
not allowed bipartisanship in policy-making, in the financial 
situation, or even making sure that we just work in harmony here on the 
major issues.
  That has not happened, and that is the reason why, Mr. Delahunt, Mr. 
Ryan, and Ms. Wasserman Schultz, the American people are hanging the 
failures of fiscal responsibility around the neck of the Republican 
majority and the White House, because they are in the same boat and 
they are rubber-stamping one another as they carry this country into 
further debt.
  I yield.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You know, Mr. Meek, I can understand why you 
would have trouble seeing past that giant rubber stamp. That is simply 
because this Chamber, through the Republican caucus and their 
Republican leadership, have been engulfed by the rubber stamp.
  You know, had our bobble-head Republican not turned up missing, we 
would be able to use that as yet another example of why you continually 
have these policies that are put forward by the Republican leadership, 
as rubber-stamped by the Republican majority, because their heads only 
move in one direction. I guess there is no hinge in this direction, 
only, yes, absolutely, we are glad to do whatever you say, anything you 
want, Mr. Speaker.
  I mean, it is just unbelievable. Fourteen months here and, ``No, 
sorry, my conscience won't allow me to do that'' is just not part of 
their vocabulary. And like I said, the joints just don't seem to work 
in this direction as they do for the Democrats.
  Now, you know, what makes matters worse about all of the things that 
we have been talking about, about the debt and the deficit and the 
bobble-head, rubber-stamp Republican majority that we have here, is 
that there are consequences. This stuff matters. It matters in real 
people's lives.
  And what the Republican leadership would have you believe, especially 
in recent days, their new thing now is that the economy is doing great. 
Now, obviously they are now trying to shift to a new frame and help 
everybody understand that in spite of an $8 trillion deficit, in spite 
of the colossal debt that we are in to foreign countries across this 
globe, in spite of the fact that we have disproportionate trade 
deficits with many, many countries, Americans are doing great.
  Really? Really?
  Okay, well, let's examine that. I have here what the consequences 
actually are. We came up with a top ten list that describes the 
consequences of Republican economic policies. Since they raised the 
subject, they have brought it up recently and said, everything is rosy, 
red rosy, and so let's just take a walk down memory lane here in terms 
of what is really going on in the United States of America.
  Number 10. I am Danielle Letterman this evening. Number 10, we have a 
projected surplus of $5.6 trillion that has vanished. It was replaced 
by a deficit in 2004 of $413 billion, which is the largest in our 
Nation's history, and a deficit of $318 billion in 2005, an almost $3.5 
trillion deficit over the next 10 years.
  Number 9. The Bush administration is the administration with the 
greatest average annual decline in household income. We are talking 
real people here. Since Bush took office, household income has declined 
by $1,670.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Just to make a point. We heard a lot today, and I 
know I heard on the floor today a lot about how, as you said, the 
economy was doing great and how incomes were up. I think we have some 
facts that say otherwise.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We are talking third-party validators here. 
This is not stuff we are making up. This is not the Debbie Wasserman 
Schultz encyclopedia.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I think it is very important. I think that Number 9 
explains the reason why the majority whip is perplexed, because what is 
clear to me is that the economy, if you were a student of economics and 
took a look at the macro view and saw growth, why the people aren't 
responding appropriately.
  The reality is that the economy, Mr. Speaker, is superb. It is 
outstanding. It is phenomenal, if you are in the top 1 percent of the 
American population, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And I would suggest that the President's approval 
rating wouldn't be at 31 or 32 percent if the economy was going great.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If people thought everything was as rosy as 
they would describe.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Exactly.
  I yield for Number 8.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Number 8, 45.8 million Americans have no 
health insurance at all, 6 million more than in 2000.
  Now, if things were getting better, that number would be, oh, I don't 
know, smaller, Mr. Speaker, not bigger, smaller. And you have, since 
then the cost of health insurance has risen nearly 59 percent. Yet 
workers' wages have only increased by 12 percent.
  Now, we all do different things in our lives every day. We go to the 
supermarket. I am out on the soccer field or at dance class or on 
airplanes back and forth.
  I am sitting next to a couple, a middle-aged couple, on the plane the 
other day from Tennessee. Not exactly a bastion of liberalism. They are 
from Tennessee. And do you know what they wanted to talk to me about 
when they found out I was a Member of Congress? What were we going to 
do about the cost of health care?
  They owned a small business. They employed quite a number, 75 people. 
They employed 75 people and he literally said, the husband, the husband 
and wife team literally told me that within the next couple of years, 
if health care costs continue to go in this direction as they have 
since 2000, they would probably have to close their business. I mean, 
that is how bad it was getting.
  So the garbage that the Republican leadership and this administration 
are trying to feed the American people, you know, that 31 percent, that 
number, I would expect would continue.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And it is a tough argument to make to say, when 
someone's struggling to say, no, no, you are really doing okay. Wait, 
no I am not. I have got to tell you it is kind of hard right now. No, I 
am telling you, you are really doing fine.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. The economy grew.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I realize you are racking up credit card debt. I 
realize you can't afford to put gas in your tank.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. And by the way, Mr. Ryan, it was interesting tonight on

[[Page 7819]]

ABC News, for the 16th straight meeting of the Federal Reserve, 
interest rates were raised.
  You know what that means, Mr. Speaker? That means that if you have an 
adjustable rate mortgage on your home, you are paying more money. You 
are paying more than that $30 that this Republican Congress refunded to 
77 percent of American families today. You are paying a lot more. And 
the reason is that because of the reckless spending that Pat Toomey 
refers to here, because of the reckless spending, you are jacking up 
interest rates, Mr. Speaker.
  The majority party in this House, in this Senate, is complicit with 
the White House in terms of hidden costs like mortgage interest, like 
credit card interest. A while back it was 11 percent on your credit 
card. You know what it is today, Mr. Speaker? Today, the average 
interest rate on your credit card, it is 16 percent. You think that is 
a savings for the American people? You wonder what's wrong.
  And Ms. Wasserman Schultz tells us that the median income for a 
family in this country has actually declined. And you think the economy 
is good?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Delahunt, I guess they follow the 
philosophy and the idea that if you say it enough times, people will 
believe it. Maybe if you say it enough times, actually our governor, it 
must be in the genes, also subscribes to that theory in Florida, and 
really believes that if you say something enough times, then it will 
come true.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Number 7?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes, Number 7. Thirty-seven million Americans 
are living in poverty. We have a 12.7 percent poverty rate, which is on 
the rise, and 5.4 million people have fallen into poverty since the 
beginning of the Bush administration, 5.4 million people.
  You know, if they are going to talk about who is doing better, it is 
the wealthiest that are doing better. Their income is on the rise. 
Their life is getting better. Their lives are improving and their 
outlook is more rosy. The poor are getting poorer.
  Number 6.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, please just don't say it is the 
poor. It is not the poor. It is the middle class.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are right.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. It is even the relatively affluent. They are not doing 
anywhere near as well as the top 1 percent.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Delahunt, when I have to pay $56 to fill 
up the gas tank in my minivan, believe me, you are right. It is not 
just the poor.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. It is hurting the middle class.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And I would like to make a comment here, because 
that is, and I think that is the epitome of what this outfit is all 
about. It is always that, well, there is going to be a certain segment 
of our society that is poor. And you know what, it is tough to be in 
the middle class. And you know what, we can't come up with an 
alternative energy source. You know, well, conservation is a good 
personal virtue, but it is not a good, you know, public policy.
  You know, this is not leadership. We should be trying to fix these 
problems, not just say, okay, we accept them. We accept 5.4 million 
people going into poverty in the last 5 years under the Bush 
administration. And when you look at who, you know, what? Mr. Meek, I 
want you to look at this. This picture epitomizes, Mr. Delahunt, 
because the President is holding the hand of one of the most powerful 
Saudi leaders in the world.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. The Saudi king.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. The king. And I want this President to come hold 
the hand of somebody in my district. Go hold the hand of one of the 5.4 
million people that just slipped into poverty.
  This man doesn't need his hand held. But we have got a lot of people 
in the country that need a little help, and not a handout, a hand up, 
an opportunity to succeed.
  I yield for Number 6.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, it takes $53 to 
fill up an F-10 pickup truck. I mean, we have folks that are doing this 
on the credit card, Mr. Speaker, and guess what, after a couple of 
months of that, $50-some-odd, some folks' average balance that they 
have is $1,200 on a credit card. Soon they are not going to be able to 
do that, and they are going to be in the same situation this country is 
in, in debt.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. And they are paying 16 percent on that credit card 
bill.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And not be able to go on a hunting trip, not be 
able to go on a fishing trip, not be able to go on some kind of family 
vacation.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Not be able to get to work. How do people who 
are living paycheck to paycheck factor in $53, $56 into their weekly 
budget? And we have shown those charts, before too, and we can again. 
When your bottom line gas tank, filling-the-gas-tank cost goes from 
$20-something to $50-something every time you fill up, and people who 
have to drive any distance, I mean, we are from an urban community, a 
suburban community, as are both of you.

                              {time}  2100

  You just cannot zip around these communities in 2 seconds. You have 
to drive to get to most places. We are going to get to a point where 
people will lose their jobs because they will not be able to get to 
their jobs.
  Mr. Ryan, let us just digress for a second and show what is going on.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I think this is very important when you ask why 
people are slipping into poverty.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. These are the consequences.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. This is exactly right. This is a consequence of 
some faulty leadership in the Nation's capital. Oil companies profits 
in 2002, $34 billion. This is BP, Shell, Chevron, the whole bit. It 
gradually went up, in 2005, $113 billion in profits.
  Now, something is wrong with the structure of our society when the 
oil companies are reaping $113 billion in profits and we have 5.4 
million people slipping into poverty. We have college tuition costs 
doubling all over the country, Mr. Delahunt. We have a structure here 
that is just not working for the people any more.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. You forgot one thing, Mr. Ryan.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Is that in addition to the $113 billion in profit, 
and three times, triple what it was 4 years ago? The American 
taxpayers, those that would be overhearing our conversation tonight, 
are subsidizing those same oil companies to the tune of about $16.3 
billion.
  So let us be clear. Out of the 100, not only is this outfit here, 
these oil companies getting $113 billion, our friend is saying, 
corporate welfare from this Republican-led institution, gave these guys 
$16.3 billion of taxpayer money.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. What do we get? Do you know what we get? We get a price 
of gasoline per gallon that cost $1.45 4 years ago. We now can buy it 
for $3.25. That is what we get.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Delahunt, that is the reason why we know it 
made number 6 on this chart. We want to make sure that we know it went 
to number 5. I want to make sure we believe in third-party validators 
here.
  I just pulled this out of my notebook here because I want to make 
sure while we are talking about this, Mr. Speaker, Washington Post, 
November 16, 2005, page 1, White House documents showed that executives 
from big oil companies met with Vice President Dick Cheney, Energy Task 
Force 2001, something long suspected by environmentalists but denied 
recently as of November, 2005.
  Last week, industry officials testified before Congress. The document 
obtained this week by the Washington Post shows that officials from 
Exxon Mobil Corporation, Conoco, before the merger with Phillips, Shell 
Oil Company, and BP of America met in a White House complex with Cheney 
aides who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which 
became law, and parts which are still being debated.

[[Page 7820]]


  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. There is no end in sight. No end in sight to 
the rising gas prices. What will happen with number 7, where we have a 
12.7 percent poverty rate that is on the rise and 5.4 million more 
people who have fallen into poverty. That number is going to get 
bigger. It is costs like these that send people into poverty.
  You have number 6 here that talks about the Consumer Confidence 
Board's index. Its expectation index is the lowest it has been in 3 
years.
  Number 5, Congressional Republicans defeated a Democratic amendment 
recently to increase the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25. If the 
minimum wage kept pace with inflation, it would be $8.88 right now. It 
hasn't been increased since 1997. That is 9 years ago. 9 years?
  I mean, if you are a person who is living on the minimum wage, 
struggling to pay, to fill your gas tank, struggling to put food on the 
table, you have no health insurance, do you really want the Bush 
administration and the Republican leadership to tell you how great the 
economy is? Do you believe them?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. That is an insult. The more I think about it, that 
is a real insult.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is a slap in the face, and, really, a 
bigger and bigger percentage of the population is being engulfed by the 
struggle just to make ends meet.
  Let us go to number 4.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. You know what, it would be nice to represent a 
district where the economy is going great, would it not? Yes, it is 
going great. Look around, everybody is having a nice time. That will be 
great. Fortunately, I think in most districts that is not the case.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Maybe they live in an alternative universe, 
bizarre world.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Maybe this is a supernatural thing.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I know, maybe they watch Star Trek.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Maybe it is supernatural. That is what we all know.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Maybe it is.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I think this is fascinating, as you go through this 
litany of consequences of, you know, Bush, Republican, neoconservative 
economic policies.
  I think what we see here, the cumulative effect in the aggregate of 
all of these policies is the erosion of the middle class in this 
country. Debbie, you are correct. More and more people are getting 
closer to falling into that poverty.
  The middle class, if this reckless spending, policies that advantage 
only the extremely wealthy continue in this country, we won't have a 
middle class. We will look like some banana republic in Central 
America.
  This is the reality that we face. I think we can all agree that 
without a healthy vibrant middle class our very democracy is at risk.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. How about the common good?
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Oh, please.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. How about the common good? How about the good of 
everybody where everybody contributes and everybody benefits. The 
common good. Rising tide lifts all boats, Mr. Delahunt. Everybody 
benefits from our economic policy, not this stuff.
  How is this good for society? The guy in the pickup truck is paying 
$57 to fill up gas tanks and the oil companies are making $113 billion 
in profits, 5.4 million are following into poverty, tuition costs 
triple. Health care is up how many percent above the rate of increase 
in wages?
  All of these things say that this Republican Congress and Republican 
administration is about a very small group of people. All we are making 
the argument more here is we are America. We are a family.
  Where is the American family, Ms. Wasserman Schultz? Let us start 
worrying about all of us. Because if we lose a couple, it is bad for 
everybody.
  I yield to my friend.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Ryan, I think I have figured it out. You 
have broken the code. The Republicans are the party of the cavernous 
abyss. They don't mind sending people right off the cliff into it, 
whether it is expanding poverty, sinking job growth, increasing the 
number of uninsured by millions each year.
  The party of the cavernous abyss is the party that created this 
Medicare prescription drug program with another cavernous abyss that 
senior citizens fall into just after they spend a little amount of 
money on their prescription drugs. So you have to ask where the 
American family is. They are engulfed by the Republican cavernous 
abyss.
  Number 4, I think we are on now. Yes, number 4. There are now 1.3 
million more unemployed private sector workers than there were in 
January of 2001, the beginning of the party of the cavernous abyss. The 
long-term unemployment rate, which is people who are unemployed for 
more than 26 weeks, has nearly doubled since that time.
  This is the rosy economy that we are living in, Mr. Meek. This is how 
great we are doing.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. But the economy is growing, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, the 
economy is growing.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The economy is growing so well that we have 
number 3, in which the Bush administration, it has become clear, has 
the slowest job growth of any administration in over 70 years. Since 
January of 2001, 2.9 million manufacturing jobs have been lost. That is 
entire towns in Mr. Ryan's district.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. But the economy is growing. But the economy has grown.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Rosy, rosy. Things are rosy, rosy. Number 2, 
since President Bush took office the economy that is rosy, rosy has 
posted only 15 months of job gains of 150,000 or more. That is since he 
took office, that is in 6 years. That is the number of jobs needed to 
keep up with the population growth. So we are not talking about 
anything to write home to talk about.
  Finally, number 1 of the top 10 worst consequences of Republican 
economic policies, 7.2 million Americans remain unemployed today with 
an additional 4.2 million who want a job, but are not counted among the 
unemployed because they have been looking so long they get taken off 
the rolls. The economy is rosy.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Let us do better.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. But the economy is growing.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Let us do better. Let us implement some of these 
ideas that we have. Let us implement some of this innovation agenda 
where we are going to have broadband in every household, Mr. Delahunt. 
That will create a whole new class of people that will understand how 
to benefit from the Internet.
  Let's have the research and development tax credit that the Democrats 
have in our innovation agenda. Let's make sure we get the real security 
going so we can make sure that we have the proper energy process, the 
proper energy plan for the United States of America.
  Why is it still going to be energy independent and the United States 
of America still gambling in this game that we have in the Middle East? 
It's a big game that we are losing. Everybody is losing. It leads to 
the war on terrorism. It leads to these tremendous profits at the cost 
of average people, Mr. Delahunt. It is polluting the environment.
  We have all kinds of problems because we refuse to say, we want to be 
a leader in alternative energies in the world. Brazil is doing it, why 
can't we? Why is there a magnetic levitation train in Shanghai that 
goes 270 miles an hour and not in the United States, Mr. Delahunt?
  Quite frankly, I think this President and this Congress has given our 
generation, the 30-something generation, a pretty raw deal. You know, 
you think about it, we are going to have more debt. We are going to 
have a dirtier environment. We have got higher tuition costs. We have 
got more debt, higher credit card rates, higher interest rates, less 
control, because we borrowed so much money from all of these foreign 
countries. What legacy are you leaving to the next generation, which is 
what

[[Page 7821]]

we originally started coming to this floor for?
  It is terrible. That is poor leadership. I don't care if you are a 
Democrat or you are a Republican. That is poor leadership. You left the 
country worse off than you found it. That is not the American way. That 
is not the American dream. Give us a chance, Mr. Speaker. Put us in 
coach. I mean, God, we couldn't do any worse. We have ideas to unleash 
the potential of this country and move the country forward.
  Mr. Meek.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I just have something to share, but I am willing 
to yield to my colleagues. Mr. Delahunt, I know that you had, you had 
your glasses out, I know that you wanted to share something with us.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I think just to underscore, Mr. Speaker, what we are 
talking about here tonight is the overall Republican economic policy 
that favors the top 1 percent of the American people.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. It doesn't work.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. I think we have made our case. Can I just give you one 
more statistic?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. You can do whatever you want.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Back in 1991.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. 1991?
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Give me just a minute. Back in 1991, the top 1 percent 
of the American people, the population, top 1 percent, owned 38 percent 
of the corporate wealth in this country. One percent in 1991 owned 38 
percent of the corporate wealth in this country.

                              {time}  2115

  Today, today, the top 1 percent of the American population in terms 
of wealth owns 58 percent of the corporate wealth.
  Let me suggest it is more than just an economic policy that is 
creating this economic divide in this country that is truly making us a 
class society that is dangerous for democracy. It is more than that. It 
has, I would submit, no moral underpinning.
  There is no basis in morality for this level of disparity of wealth 
and income among Americans. This is economic Darwinism. This is, as you 
said so eloquently, Mr. Ryan, not what America is about. This doesn't 
reflect the social compact that we all adhere to as Americans, where we 
encourage individual initiative, but at the same time, recognize mutual 
responsibilities and a willingness to share.
  This is not sharing. This is just, I don't want to use the word 
``immoral,'' but it doesn't have, I would suggest, the kind of moral 
underpinning that reflects American values.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. And I would like to make a point, because as the 
oil companies reap these profits, and again I am not saying for you not 
to make profits, but not at the expense of everyone else in society.
  So I want to make this point: The oil companies benefit a great deal 
from the public, from what the taxpayers support, A, point number one, 
the $16.3 billion in corporate welfare that they are getting from the 
public tax dollars that is going to them. So they can't say they don't 
benefit from the public.
  But their product is sold on roads that are funded by the taxpayer. 
Those roads are protected by the taxpayer, paved by the taxpayer, 
secured by the taxpayer. The ports in which the oil comes in and out of 
our country, all funded by the taxpayers. The Coast Guard, by the 
taxpayers. The military, the over $400 billion budget that we have here 
that we spend on our military that goes to protect the transportation 
lines and the oceans, and as the ships start distributing this all over 
the world, that is protected by the taxpayer.
  So all we are arguing here, Mr. Speaker, is that the taxpayer has an 
interest; and when this company and this certain industry benefits so 
much from the public tax dollars, they should be responsive to the 
public in these instances.
  I would be happy to yield to any one of you to wrap up this brilliant 
discussion. I am going to yield to Debbie.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you.
  The only thing I want to add to tie a ribbon on this whole discussion 
is that what we have all noticed, whether we are in our districts with 
our constituents or talking to people across the country, when we 
interact with them, is that people have reached the breaking point. 
They don't buy it. They don't buy the garbage that is being fed to them 
by this administration that the economy is rosy, that everything is 
going well, that everything is hunky-dory.
  They are falling off the cliff into the Republican cavernous abyss, 
and they are tired of it, and they want to have the Democrats or 
someone other than the people who are taking them in this direction 
that they no longer are willing to go, to fix it. Even their former 
House Speaker Newt Gingrich said that they are seen by the country as 
being in charge of a government that can't function.
  Mr. DELAHUNT. Newt Gingrich, former Republican Speaker of this House.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is time to move this country in a new 
direction and restore America's confidence in their government. We know 
we have a plan that we can do that.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, as we go through this tonight, the 30 
Something's two key third-party validators are the former Speaker of 
the House Newt Gingrich and former Congressman Pat Toomey, now 
president of the Club for Growth, both saying that there is out-of-
control spending, out-of-control government, dysfunctional, and the 
American people know that.
  Any Members who would like to come to our Web site, 
www.housedemocrats.gov/30Something, www.housedemocrats.gov/30Something.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Also, Mr. Ryan, I want to share with the 
Members, Mr. Speaker, that all of the charts tonight will be on that 
Web site, on the 30 Something front page.
  Also, I would like to share with the Members that Ranking Member 
George Miller and also U.S. Senator Dick Durbin put forth a proposal to 
reverse the raid on student loans. Earlier this year, as you know, $12 
billion was cut out of the Federal student loan program in order to 
help finance tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans.
  This proposal will roll that back and cut in half interest rates from 
6.8 percent to 3.4 percent. And it has to be done sooner rather than 
later. If not, it will be a financial burden after July 1 for so many 
kids that want to go to college. They will actually qualify, but kids 
will be priced out and not be able to make it to college.
  Of course, this wouldn't be a discussion if the Democrats were in 
control, but we hope that we can work in a bipartisan way to change 
that.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank all of my colleagues who joined us 
here tonight on the floor and thank the Democratic leadership for the 
hour.

                          ____________________