[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 6]
[House]
[Pages 7821-7828]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




               THE CONTINUED MISDIRECTION OF THE COUNTRY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Carnahan) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be here in the House tonight 
and be joined by some of our colleagues in the freshman Democratic 
class that was elected in 2004.
  I believe my colleague, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz from 
Florida, is going to stay on and talk with us a little bit tonight, and 
we

[[Page 7822]]

expect to be joined by some other of our colleagues to talk about the 
continued direction of our country and, in particular, this budget and 
tax plan that has been put before this Congress by President Bush and 
congressional Republicans.
  I really want to rise and express my deep, deep concern about this 
budget. The cuts in programs across the board, no other word can be 
given, but they are staggering. This budget does not provide for the 
average American. It continues to line the pockets of the wealthiest 
Americans.
  Like so many of the President's priorities, this budget is a 
misplaced opportunity to actually effect positive change for our 
citizens. I would like to draw particular attention to the energy 
provisions in this budget.
  Last week, the AP reported that the average cost of a gallon of 
regular, unleaded gasoline was $2.92, up 35 cents from just a month 
ago. Moreover, U.S. drivers are now paying about 14 percent more to 
fill their tanks than just 1 year ago. Recent polls show that over 65 
percent of Americans are suffering from financial hardship due to 
rising gas prices. But we don't need a poll to tell us that when we 
fill our tanks.
  Debbie, you told us earlier, like many of us, we go to fill up our 
tank of gas, and it is nothing to pay $50 or more to fill our tank of 
gas, just to do our routine chores and drive around town where we live.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. And the astronomical increase we have had in 
gas prices, which affects everyday Americans every single day, has just 
been unbelievable.
  Actually, Mr. Carnahan, we have a chart that illustrates those 
drastic increases, that is being brought over right now, that I think 
would be helpful; because I am a visual person, and graphically 
depicting some of these significant problems is really helpful.
  Mr. CARNAHAN. I have to add, by the way, you have great graphs.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Thank you.
  Mr. CARNAHAN. And I loved your top ten.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. We have good graph-makers among our staff.
  You talk about summer gas prices. Just look at the difference over 
the years since the Republicans have been in charge.
  In 2002, Mr. Carnahan, the average price of a gallon of gas was 
$1.39; that was the summer of 2002. Then you go to the summer of 2003, 
it was $1.57. 2004, $1.90. Move over to the summer of just last year, 
$2.37. And then this April, just last month, we hit $2.91. Now, most of 
us in the last several weeks have all paid over $3 in most communities 
across America.
  So this is the reality of the rosy Republican economy that they have 
been describing and painting for us over the last several days.
  Mr. CARNAHAN. It certainly is. And we have all had the stark 
awakening as we fill our tanks each week.
  I am reminded, as you were talking about President Bush, in his State 
of the Union Address in this very Chamber, he told the Nation that our 
country was addicted to oil. He also said that this administration was 
committed to reducing our dependence on foreign oil. But then the very 
next day, the President's own Energy Secretary was back-pedaling on the 
President's promises.
  The President's solution in his budget was to end our dependence on 
foreign oil with just paltry, really crumbs, from our budget. Our 
budget is a document that sets our national priorities, and a mere $130 
million was set aside for all, for all renewable energy programs.
  Not only is this increase in renewable energy programs insufficient, 
the President proposed to eliminate research on other renewables, 
including geothermal and hydropower.
  As reported in the Atlanta Journal Constitution in February, the 
total proposed increase in clean energy research is equal to just 7 
percent of ExxonMobil's profit for the fourth quarter of 2005. So while 
big oil companies are recording record profits, the Bush administration 
is showing limited increases in funding for renewable energy. In fact, 
his budget would not get renewable energy efficiency back even to where 
it was at the end of the Clinton administration, this at a time when 
gas prices are squeezing the American families.
  President Bush's budget should reflect the needs of all Americans. It 
should be a budget that supports programs to end independence from oil 
and not one that encourages it. The energy provisions in this budget do 
not meet the needs of our country, and this budget should be defeated.
  I am pleased to be joined here tonight by my good friend and 
colleague and fellow Missourian, Emanuel Cleaver.
  Mr. CLEAVER. It is good to be here. We were sworn in together to this 
Congress, and I have often been asked, what has surprised you the most?
  In fact, today, a group of students from the Bloch School of Business 
at the University of Missouri in Kansas City was here, the Bloch School 
named after Henry Bloch, the founder H&R Block, who is a Kansas Citian; 
and the question they asked was, what has surprised you the most?
  Having served as mayor of Kansas City for two terms, I have seen a 
lot in the political environment. So they were obviously wanting me to 
describe what I saw here as opposed to and what was different from what 
I saw as mayor.
  The number one issue I always report is the incivility. I don't think 
any of us who were sworn into the 109th Congress expected the 
incivility to be at the level that we have witnessed.
  I have gone to some of the long-time Members of Congress from the 
Democrat side and asked, for example, when we were in the majority, did 
we do mean-spirited things? Did we leave the vote open for 3 hours? Did 
we lock the door to keep people out from the other side?

                              {time}  2130

  And they said, we did shamefully some things. We never left the vote 
open for 3 hours. We never locked out people from a markup. And I 
cannot tell you how upset I became to find out last year, that just 
before Christmas, many of us sat here all night for a vote on the 
defense bill, and the American public probably does not know that there 
is not a single human being on planet Earth who read the bill, because 
the bill actually was a compilation from a number of committees. And so 
while there may have been one group familiar with one part of the 
budget, there was nobody, no group familiar with the entire budget. And 
I sat on the front row, and I actually fell asleep about 6 a.m. and I 
got up and I said, I am not going to vote for this.
  And then a number of my colleagues came over and said, yeah, this is 
wrong, they should not have done it. But you have to vote for it 
because if you do not vote for it, they will send e-mails throughout 
your district saying that you were opposed to the troops, you were 
against supporting the troops in Afghanistan and Iraq.
  And I said, will they do things like that? And so I wondered if they 
were overstating it. I voted for it like most Members of Congress. And 
then 1 week later, e-mails were sent all over the State of Missouri, in 
fact I received a phone call from a constituent in Congressman 
Carnahan's district because I voted against a bill to protect the 
symbols of Christmas.
  I could not believe that the Congress of the United States, the 109th 
Congress, with $4 billion being spent every month in Iraq, with No 
Child Left Behind not receiving full funding within my State, and in 
Congressman Carnahan's State there have been 97,000 people kicked off 
Medicaid. When you consider the fact that we do not have an energy 
policy in this country, at least not one that makes sense, I could not 
understand why the Congress of the United States needed to protect 
Christmas. As if, you know Christmas was in danger, and if we did not 
vote, if the people in here did not vote, Christmas was not going to 
occur.
  And so I voted against it, because I thought it was ridiculous then, 
I think it is ridiculous now. I have a master's degree in theology and 
never read anything which would suggest that God needed the help of the 
109th Congress.

[[Page 7823]]

  But it gives you an idea about the civility or lack thereof. And so 
it causes me a great deal of pain to see many of the things that are 
occurring. I do not want to suggest that we do not have some people on 
our side who may also from time to time contribute to the vitriol that 
I see. The difference, of course, is our vitriol means very little 
because we do not have the power and the ability to bring legislation 
up.
  And so when I go home and tell people, they say, well, why do you not 
introduce a bill to do such and such? And I said, you do not 
understand. I can introduce 1,000 bills. If I introduced a bill that 
would cure cancer, it would never get a hearing. And it is always a 
surprise for the public to hear that because they do not understand 
that you cannot introduce legislation no matter how great the merit, if 
you are not with the majority party.
  Mr. CARNAHAN. We have also been joined by our colleague, 
Congresswoman Schwartz from Pennsylvania. And welcome. It is great for 
you to be with us tonight.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Thank you. I appreciate the 
opportunity. As my colleagues know, I am a Member of the Budget 
Committee. I serve on that committee in an effort to, both of course, 
understand the budget and the decisions that we make in this Congress 
on behalf of the country, on behalf of American families, and hoping to 
speak up on behalf of American families and their priorities.
  I was particularly interested in coming out this evening to talk on 
the perspective as a new Member of Congress. I came from the State 
Senate. As for most State Senates in this country, the States have to 
balance their budget. We have to make decisions, and we have to decide 
the priorities. We cannot spend money we do not have.
  And so as a State Senator, those were difficult choices we often 
made, in how to do that. And certainly as a Member of this freshman 
class, I recognize that many of us come with broad perspectives and 
experiences that we bring. Some of us come from State legislatures, 
many of us do, so we have that experience in how to make those 
decisions in our priorities.
  Some came from running small businesses and being mayors, being on 
city councils, being in county government, again tough choices that we 
have to make. And I think on the eve of what we expect tomorrow, the 
Republicans to bring their proposal before us and ask for a vote on it, 
I think it is a time for us to use our perspective as new Members of 
Congress coming maybe even closer than some of our other colleagues 
from hearing the concerns of our constituents, of the families, of the 
seniors, of even the kids in our districts, certainly of our local 
governments.
  And to be able to really ask some of the tough questions of this 
budget, to be able to say, and I think we should all be thinking about, 
if I could just lay out a few, and then maybe you want to add some of 
your comments and thoughts about this.
  I think we do have to think about the budget at the time when we do 
decide on our priorities, when we do think about what is important to 
us as Americans, and how we should best use our taxpayer dollars. And 
so as we face this decision tomorrow, certainly I think we have to talk 
about and think about does this Republican budget value fiscal 
discipline? Is it honest budgeting?
  Did the Republican leadership make those tough choices needed to 
balance the budget to pay down the debt, to be able to use those 
resources really well? The answer I would say on that score is no.
  This Republican budget continues the borrow and spend policies that 
we have seen certainly in the 2 years that we have been here. It 
certainly does not balance the Federal Government's checkbook. And it 
does, in fact, run a new deficit to this coming year of $348 billion of 
new deficit to add to the debt that of course is already at $8 trillion 
and that we know we will pass along to our children and grandchildren.
  Second, does this Republican budget value our shared economic future? 
Does it do some of the things that I think we have heard about already 
this evening? Are we making the wise investments in education, in 
workforce development, in some of the energy discussions that you were 
having already, and whether we, in fact, are investing in alternative 
fuels and renewable fuels and really reducing our reliance on foreign 
oil so we can be competitive in a global marketplace?
  Again, the Republican budget does not do this. It cuts funding in 
education and renewable energy initiatives and in fact impedes some of 
the concerns that we have on health care and education.
  Third, I would just say two more, then I am going to yield to my 
colleagues. But to say that this Republican budget, we have to ask does 
this Republican budget value enhanced security and a strong defense? In 
fact, does it provide for the men and women who have served this 
country in Iraq and Afghanistan and in previous wars? And the answer is 
no, it does not.
  It cuts veterans health care, and it does not, we are concerned, does 
not provide for the troops in the field the way it should. So we are 
looking at a cut of $6 billion in veterans health care.
  And our ability to make sure that our current homeland security is as 
strong as it needs to be? Again, we have had numerous debates on the 
floor of Congress. But this budget does not meet all that we know that 
we should be doing so that we can assure our constituents and our 
families that in fact they are secure at home.
  And finally I would say, does this Republican budget, is it based on, 
in fact, sound and fair tax policies? Does it recognize the priorities 
of everyday Americans? And the fact that again this Republican budget 
is relying on what is the major goal, it seems to me, of the other side 
of the aisle, and that is to provide tax cuts to the wealthiest 
Americans.
  That seems to be their singular purpose, and all else flows from 
that. When in fact, there are so many, as I point out, issues and 
concerns. We, in fact, need to make sure, because the tax cuts that 
they are looking at really benefit, and 90 percent of the tax cuts go 
to the wealthiest Americans.
  Is that really what we want to be doing in this country at this 
particular time with this kind of debt in this country and with this 
kind of growing deficit? So I would say this budget fails on so many 
levels to meet fiscal discipline, to meet the priorities of American 
families, for us to be able to go home and say, we came here to fight 
for our constituents, for everyday Americans, and does this budget do 
it?
  And I think the answer has to be that it does not, that we can do 
better, that we must do better, and we must put forward the needs of 
American families. I would be happy to add on what I think we ought to 
be doing, because you should know, and of course as you know the 
Democrats put forward a Democratic alternative on the Budget Committee.
  I was part of crafting that. I am proud to say that I have done it. 
And what we have done is to be able to say that we can live within our 
means, we can, in fact, meet our obligations, and we can, in fact, 
build a budget that begins to pay down the debt, the enormous debt that 
this country is in, at the same time making the important investments 
that we need for the future in this country.
  So that is our obligation to me as a Member of Congress of what we 
bring as freshmen. It seems funny to call ourselves freshmen. You are 
experienced people who have brought a lot to our first tenure here.
  But the fact is that we should draw on these experiences that we have 
had in the private sector and in other areas of the public sector to 
say that we know that we have to make these tough choices, and we 
should, and we should do so in a way that is fiscally responsible, that 
in fact we can say proudly to our constituents, to our children, to our 
grandchildren that in fact we have done right in making the right 
investments, and, in fact, we have done so in a fiscally disciplined 
way.
  It would be wonderful to be voting on that kind of budget tomorrow. 
But, unfortunately, it is unlikely that we will have that opportunity, 
at least for the majority budget that is going to be presented to us.

[[Page 7824]]


  Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you. I just want to say I am so proud to be one 
of the new Democrats in the House and be here with you all tonight.
  I was listening to you and thinking about our freshman class, and 
particularly the Democrats involved. Almost all of them came from prior 
experience in the State government, in the State legislatures, like 
Congresswoman Schwartz, and I know Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz was 
also in the State legislature, and Congressman Cleaver was Mayor in 
Kansas City, a lot of experience.
  And we all had to work with our State and local budgets and be 
fiscally responsible, the same way that many of our American families 
have to be with their household budgets. And the way that priorities 
have been set in this budget are so skewed from what the average people 
in this country need.
  And probably one of the best examples of that is the energy bill that 
we passed. And I know all of us voted against it here on the floor 
tonight. At a time when we provided $14 billion in tax breaks to the 
big oil companies, and weeks later, just weeks later, they announced 
the biggest profits in the history of the world. And now we see the 
prices at the pump, we continue to pay. Again, very, very misplaced 
priorities.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. In fact, we are often asked, how would 
we find additional resources in a budget? And you make a good point, 
that there are, in fact, expenditures that we would not make, that we 
would choose to use in different ways.
  And certainly, the subsidies that we offered, that the Republicans 
pushed through for the oil industry at a time when there were record 
profits, we are talking about $113 billion profits for the oil industry 
last year, and that is not revenue, that is profits.
  $36 billion just for Exxon Mobil. It is really sort of an 
extraordinary sum. But there are other ways that we would also cut. We 
would not spend some of the dollars that they have. There are enormous 
subsidies given to the HMOs for the Medicare prescription drug benefit.
  That has been talked about a good bit, too. Should we continue those 
subsidies for the HMOs rather than making sure that more of our seniors 
have access to prescription drugs and in fact reduce the cost of that 
program to Government? Is that the choice we make?
  We are looking at tax loopholes that still incentivize companies to 
ship their jobs overseas. What about closing those loopholes, bringing 
those dollars home, investing that in workforce development, for 
example?
  Or a favorite of ours on the Budget Committee is the fact that there 
are in fact billions of dollars of tax revenue that is not collected in 
this country. And there is an interesting report recently that suggests 
as much as $350 billion is not collected from people who owe taxes to 
this government.
  If we went out and just got 10 or 20 percent of that, you are talking 
about $35 or $70 billion that we then could use, that would go to some 
of the priorities that we are talking about. That is the kind of way we 
would be more fiscally responsible in drawing on money that is being 
spent now, that could be spent in a better way for everyday Americans 
to be able to meet their responsibilities and their goals for 
themselves, their families and for our country.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. You are absolutely right. One of the other 
elements of our alternative budget plan would embrace once again, as 
was the policy during the Clinton administration and when Democrats 
controlled the United States Congress, was the concept of PAYGO.

                              {time}  2145

  That is, I know, with you as a member of the Budget Committee and Mr. 
Spratt as the ranking member, is an idea that our Democratic Members 
have championed as a part of our alternative. And we have done that on 
a number of occasions and attempted to get the Republicans to go along 
with us and the concept of PAYGO.
  PAYGO is very simple. We came from States, and in our State 
legislatures you have to operate in the black. Just like people who are 
members of their families, they struggle not to have to go into debt, 
not to have to live paycheck to paycheck and not to have to go into 
massive credit card debt.
  Unfortunately, the Republican leadership here does not subscribe to 
that philosophy, and that is evidenced by their rejection of pay-as-
you-go rules whereby we would not spend more than we have.
  On March 17 of last year, Mr. Spratt, our ranking member on the 
Budget Committee, offered a substitute amendment to the 2006 budget 
resolution that failed 165 to 264, no Republicans supporting pay-as-
you-go legislation. And we have the rollcall indicating that we were 
supportive.
  Again, Mr. Spratt offered another amendment dealing with PAYGO that 
would have reestablished PAYGO, 224 Republicans voting ``no,'' none 
voting ``yes,'' and it failed, to 232. So we have certainly tried. It 
is not for our lack of trying to make sure that we restore some fiscal 
discipline here.
  The thing that has been the most frustrating for me as a new Member 
of Congress, and I am sure it is a frustration you have faced, is that 
the Republicans try to lead people to believe that they are the party 
of fiscal responsibility. Yet, I am someone who believes that actions 
have to back up words and talk is cheap, and that seems to be all that 
they have been about since I have gotten here.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. It was interesting in the Budget 
Committee when we talked about the principle that you are talking 
about, that we should know where the revenues are coming from if we are 
going to spend money. That is really what we are talking about.
  It is basically being unable to meet their obligations. It is knowing 
where that money is coming from. Of course, we do budget not just for 
next year, but we budget out 5 years. We used to budget to 10 years. 
But we do see those kinds of numbers so we can anticipate what we think 
might be happening.
  And what was interesting about that discussion in the Budget 
Committee is that there, in fact, is some interest, I think, on the 
other side of the aisle in doing this. They understand as well that, I 
think some of them do know, of course, they would not let that pass, 
but in fact I think if we really, truly could sit down in a bipartisan 
way and say, look, we have a responsibility to do this in a way that 
does not create a debt we do not even have any way of repaying at this 
point.
  The Republicans have, of course, taken certain things off budget. 
That means, of course, that let's not really consider what the cost to 
Katrina is, for example; the real cost of the war in Iraq and 
Afghanistan in which some estimates in the budget this year have been 
$50 billion when we know that it could well get up to $400 billion.
  Well, if you know that, we have to be straight with the American 
people. We have to be able to say, this is what we know it is going to 
cost us. How are we going to have the revenues to support that? Where 
is it going to come from? Let's have that as a serious discussion and 
let's make the hard choices we have to make.
  We know we want to support our troops. We want to make sure that they 
have all the equipment they need. That has been a discussion. Of 
course, we will support the troops in that. But let's be real about 
what it will cost us and let's be honest with the American people about 
how we will do that.
  I think there is some interest on the other side of the aisle, but in 
fact if we do that, there is no way they could go ahead with the kind 
of budget that we will be faced with tomorrow because it does not 
reveal all that we need to know about what our obligations are.
  And as you point out, for American families who struggle every day to 
figure out how do they pay, we talk about gasoline prices. That throws 
budgets into a real problem when you have budgeted really tight.
  It is not a problem to budget really tight if you do not have any 
contingency, if you are not really honest with yourself that there will 
be an expense

[[Page 7825]]

next month. But in fact we are making it harder on American families by 
not being honest with them.
  And we are making it harder on them by not bringing down gasoline 
prices. We are making it harder on them by not helping their kids going 
to college. We are making it harder on them by not allowing ways for us 
to be sure that their business can pay for health insurance.
  You can almost name any issue and we are making it harder on American 
families when in fact it does not have to be that way.
  Mr. CLEAVER. May I inquire of the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, 
Congressman Carnahan and I are from Missouri. We are in the middle of 
the country and we are not prone to extremes, so we believe you are 
supposed to balance the budget. Congressman Carnahan's father was the 
Governor twice in the State of Missouri; he balanced the budget. I had 
to do the same as Mayor of Kansas City.
  In fact, there is a State law in Missouri that you must balance your 
budgets. There is no such thing as you did not do it this year. You 
must balance the budget.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. I think that is true in all of our 
States.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Maybe as a member of the Budget Committee you can help 
me understand why the money for the gulf coast reconstruction and the 
money for Iraq was not budgeted. I mean, we do not have two of the most 
costly items in the U.S. budget factored in, and as a new Member that 
troubles me.
  It would trouble the American public if they knew. You mean you do 
not put in the cost of the war in Iraq? You mean you do not add in the 
budget the rebuilding of the most devastated region in the history of 
the United States? Well, how are we going to do it?
  So maybe you could address that.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. There is an explanation. I cannot 
necessarily and I do not want to make explanations about why it was 
done this year. I will talk about that for a minute.
  The fact is that it is reasonable for us to say that there is going 
to be an emergency that happens in this country that we cannot budget 
for. Katrina is an example. We could not have anticipated that a year 
ahead of time there would be an emergency as catastrophic as Katrina 
and the devastation it caused in the gulf States. And I have been there 
and many of you have been there to see the devastation.
  So that is why we allow for a process that we can have a supplemental 
appropriations. We get an emergency appropriation, as it is called; and 
that is appropriate because we need to act quickly. We need to act 
appropriately to help Americans.
  We have done it to help people in other countries as well.
  That is certainly true in time of war as well. If you go to war, you 
did not anticipate going to war. Then you have an emergency 
appropriation, a supplemental is what we call it, and that is 
appropriate.
  What is less understandable and I think that you make clear is what 
about a year later? What about 2 years later? Why cannot we anticipate 
at least in a better way what in fact the costs will be to clean up in 
Katrina? If we are wrong, we might need to do a supplemental.
  But now to not say we are in Iraq. There is a cost; we know what it 
is costing us every week. We know what it is costing us every month to 
put $50 billion in when all the estimations are that it will be at 
least $200, probably $300 billion at least. It is really just not being 
honest about what it is going to cost us in the future.
  For Katrina, again let's decide what we can accommodate to pay for 
and what we should. And if we have to stretch, then we have an 
obligation. As you point out, all of us have had to balance budgets. We 
should have to balance a budget here. We should be able to say, where 
should that money come from? Where does it come from? Are we asking 
Americans to all kick in? Are we going to sell Katrina bonds or 
something?
  I am throwing out ideas. Maybe there are ways we can sit down and 
say, okay, we do not have all the money for this. How can we do it in a 
way that is fair to the American people, is fair to people of different 
incomes? Maybe ask them to join in and be helpful as so many Americans 
did after Katrina, the number of dollars we got from charities, people 
wanted to help dramatically.
  There are ways for us to do this in a way that does not put our 
country into fiscal difficulties, and in fact respects the kind of 
budgeting that we should be doing in this country.
  Mr. CARNAHAN. If I could interject and amplify on that, I think the 
process has been very disingenuous when we do know we are going to have 
ongoing expenses for disaster relief, ongoing expenses for the ongoing 
efforts in fighting terrorism overseas. And it really, I think, is an 
effort to separate those questions from really making proper budget 
choices, and do we want to have more tax cuts for the wealthy and pay 
for that versus the cost of rebuilding the gulf? Or paying for our 
military or our education or our Medicare program?
  I think that really is kind of an accounting gimmick that we have 
seen throughout this process, to play down a lot of those serious 
expenses, but also to water down the quality of the debate.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. I appreciate those comments. I think 
there are some, the term ``gimmick'' is one that I am almost reluctant 
to use. My staff and I discussed whether we should talk about some of 
these gimmicks because it is such a serious process we are in.
  What we do matters in the lives of American families. I take it 
seriously. I know we all do. But the fact is, this is at least an 
accounting gimmick, if nothing else, in not recognizing some of the 
very serious expenses that we know we have and we have an obligation to 
meet.
  And again, just as in American families, we need to figure out how to 
do it. And if we cannot do it, we need to say that too. So in some of 
these situations, we are not going to say ``no.'' So we should in fact 
meet the obligations.
  Again, the example came up about veterans' health care. And I think 
we all go home. We all want to be respectful of our veterans, but 
whether in fact we fund veterans' health care or not really matters in 
each and every one of their lives. It is not so much about the rhetoric 
we have at home. It is really about what we do in this budget that 
allows them to get the health care that they need.
  I see that our colleague has a chart he may want to talk about in 
terms of the national debt and the deficit and the national debt that 
it has led to.
  Mr. CLEAVER. As I raised the question earlier, my concern was and I 
knew we would eventually get to this point, was that the money that we 
do not budget we borrow. And most Americans are outraged over the U.S. 
debt which is rising even as we speak here tonight.
  When we borrow the money for the rehabilitation of the gulf coast and 
the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq, we are borrowing those 
dollars. And right now we owe Japan $683 billion. And then next to them 
we owe China $249 billion.
  We even owe OPEC $67 billion. And at a time when we are talking about 
reducing our dependence on foreign oil, it does not make sense to me, I 
am from the middle of the country so there are some things maybe I do 
not understand. It does not make sense to me that we are talking about 
reducing our dependence on foreign oil while at the same time borrowing 
more money from OPEC.
  There is a scripture, Proverbs 22:7 which says that the borrower is 
always at the whim of the lender. And when we are talking about owing 
OPEC $67 billion, I am not sure that we are in any kind of position to 
be influential with folks to whom we owe billions of dollars.
  And the debt continues to rise with even our neighbor to the north, 
Canada. And most Americans cannot understand that debt because we have 
to pay our bills each month. And with the gasoline prices reaching $3 a 
gallon it

[[Page 7826]]

means that someone who is earning minimum wage, $5.15, works the first 
hour of their week to buy 1\7/10\ gallons of gasoline. That is obscene.
  And so it means that the first day they work, the first day they work 
of a 5-day work week, 7 hours of that, of that first day goes to fill 
up that tank of gas at the minimum wage of $5.15, which means that 
wages are not keeping up with the cost of living. And so it continues 
to roll on when you look at the average price per gallon today which is 
just under $3; and of course in many cities on the East Coast it has 
already reached $3 a gallon, and people are hemorrhaging with this kind 
of gasoline cost.
  I think it is absolutely obscene that the gasoline cost is rising at 
this level while, as my colleague, Congressman Carnahan mentioned 
earlier, the oil barons are reaping the largest profits in history. He 
said of the world; I think it is of the galaxy. No corporate 
institution has ever earned that kind of profit.

                              {time}  2200

  That becomes even more obscene when you add to that the fact that the 
CEO of one of the major companies has a retirement package that almost 
equals $400 million.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. What makes that more obscene is that the 
energy bill that Mr. Carnahan referred to at the beginning of our hour 
highlighted the fact that not only did the oil companies make universal 
record profits. Let us take it beyond the galaxy, we gave away our 
rights to collect revenue from them in exchange for the drilling 
rights.
  I mean, what so many people do not realize is that the government 
owns the land underneath where the drilling takes place, whether it is 
in the gulf or whether it is on land. The United States Government owns 
that property, and we give the oil companies the right to drill there 
in exchange for tax revenue and fees. In that legislation last summer, 
we forgave all of those fees. We gave it to them for free.
  Then a few weeks later they are making universal, history making, 
record, earth shattering profits and now people are paying more than $3 
a gallon for gas, and we gave them our gas rights, our oil rights. It 
is unbelievable.
  Mr. CARNAHAN. Mr. Speaker, the cynicism is layer upon layer, but here 
is the other cynical part of this. They are also using, the Republicans 
and the Bush administration, this as an excuse to say, well, now, we 
need to go drill in Alaska, in wilderness areas, and now we need to 
drill offshore in many of our reserved areas off our States along our 
coast.
  Those would not be available for years. They are a small fraction of 
production that we need, and if we would just channel that money back 
into true, aggressive investing in research and getting transitioned to 
a new economy with alternative fuel, ethanol, biodiesel fuels that we 
can grow and produce in the Midwest, instead of depending on the Middle 
East, our economy would be so much stronger. It would produce jobs. It 
would be a cleaner environment, and it would truly lessen our 
dependence on foreign oil.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would 
yield, what is interesting, I think that something I learned more 
about, oh, the last year is how close we are to really being able to, 
in terms of scale up, if you will, the use of some of the biofuels and 
some of the alternative fuels. So I think something one would say, most 
of us would say how far is that; will it take years and years?
  Well, for most of us in my area, we are seeing ethanol being finally 
introduced as a mixture, probably 5 percent of our gasoline. We know 
that we can make it 15 percent, 20 percent. There is even an E-85. We 
can have 85 percent of the gallon be ethanol which we produce in this 
country by growing corn, and it has been taking longer to get from the 
middle part of the country to the East Coast. We have to bring some of 
the ethanol, but in fact it is coming. We need to make it happen much 
faster.
  There needs to be incentives to make that happen. I think it will 
happen as consumers make more demands to make sure that that happens 
because in fact we do want more fuel efficiency. We want cleaner fuel, 
and we want less reliance on foreign oil because there is, as the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Cleaver) pointed out, it is also creating 
a dynamic internationally that is not really very helpful to us as we 
look towards a more peaceful and stable world.
  So that, in fact, we could be doing much more, and this budget cuts, 
rather than adds, to the initiatives that have actually been making 
these biofuels and the research and technology and using the innovation 
in this country to be able to push forward much, much more quickly.
  I think that Americans want to see the price of gasoline go down. It 
works for their pocketbooks, but they also understand that they want to 
know, well, where is it going? If it is going to just keep going up, 
how can I make this work?
  I am proposing this as Democrats. I introduced a $250 million 
initiative that we could have put in or maybe even should be more 
money, but it is much more money than this budget proposes, and really 
pushing forward on renewables and research and development and more 
fuel efficient vehicles and more fuel efficient cars.
  So there is a lot of things that can go into all of this. In fact, we 
are there already. We are really close to making it happen. We will be 
looking at American innovation and moving forward and not just 
borrowing and spending, which is really what this budget puts forward, 
and putting an enormous debt on our children and grandchildren.
  Mr. CARNAHAN. It is really exciting that we not only have the ability 
to grow the corn, to produce ethanol, and soybeans, to produce 
biodiesel, but we also have our auto industry retooling, and I want to 
yield to my friend Congressman Cleaver to tell about some exciting 
things happening in his area in Kansas City.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, the Ford plant in Kansas City is now in 
mass production of a hybrid, which they are placing on the market 
because there is hopefully going to be a great demand, and we think 
that in the middle of the country it makes perfect sense for us to 
manufacture hybrids because, after all, we produce the agricultural 
products that were mentioned earlier that can be used for E-85.
  We probably are in a situation now where we need to look at the 
situation with oil as a security issue. It is an issue that digs deeply 
into the pocketbooks of most Americans, but in addition, it is a 
security issue, and it is a security issue because the people of the 
United States, I am sure, do not want to owe this kind of money to 
China or OPEC or any of the other countries, for that matter, and so we 
need to think about this issue.
  Gasoline is an international commodity, and I think with the 
increased use of gasoline by China and India it is going to drive the 
demand up, and so the price of gasoline, in all probability, is going 
to rise.
  However, the Congress of the United States ought to get serious about 
trying to address this problem in the long run. I introduced a bill 
today that would require all Members of Congress when their lease 
expires on an MRA, the Members Representation Account, the money we get 
to run our offices, that when the lease expires on their automobiles, 
that they would have to lease or could lease only automobiles that are 
energy efficient as defined by the GSA.
  Now, the reason I have done this is because people are poking fun at 
Congress. The numbers in terms of our approval rating is always down, 
and one of the reasons is they think we are hypocrites. I mean, we talk 
about energy on the floor. We talk about it when we go home with press 
conferences, but then they look at us and see us driving big SUVs and 
it does not click. It is the thing that troubles us.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, only 
to clarify who the hypocrites are, because if you separate where the 
Democrats' voting record is on energy and making sure that we focus on 
alternative energy like in our Innovation

[[Page 7827]]

Agenda we rolled out in November, which includes an ironclad commitment 
that when we take control of this Chamber that we will within 10 years 
wean ourselves off of foreign oil and become energy independent. So the 
hypocrisy exists on the other side of the aisle. So I just want to make 
sure whose hypocrisy we are talking about.
  Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Speaker, I think that the whole energy issue is 
quite convoluted because we are never able to address the issues that 
we want the American public to benefit from because there are always 
little tricks.
  For example, LIHEAP was placed in the energy bill last year, which is 
money for low-income individuals to get assistance in their heating 
costs, and so that is placed in there. So that, if you vote against it, 
it means that you are against poor people, and of course I voted 
against it because at some point I came to the conclusion that I had to 
be faithful to who I am. I am not voting for any of those things 
anymore, where they do what we call the ``got you'' legislation, and I 
am not voting for that anymore because the American public ends up 
suffering every time we do that.
  But the question that I think is going to be raised here is will 
Congress make the decision to allow legislation to surface that would 
require that they give up gas guzzlers when they use government money 
to do the lease. Now, this is not private vehicles, but what the public 
may not know is many Members of Congress legitimately will lease 
automobiles. They can only lease them for 2 years because we are only 
here for 2 years, and then we must go up for reelection. So we are 
saying that when the lease expires, if you really believe in energy 
efficiency, then let us make sure that the public can see us as ones 
who are embracing what we are preaching. It is a horrible, horrible 
thing to advocate in a commercial that people should drink Coca-Cola 
and then people visit your home and you have Pepsi.
  So I think one of the things Congress must do, it is a moral thing I 
believe to stand up and say we are going to drive energy efficient 
cars. It gives us the right then to begin to talk to the public about 
some legitimate sacrifices that all of us are going to have to make.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, we have been talking about energy 
supplies and the cost of a tank of gas and how difficult it has been 
for Americans to deal with those increases, and another equally 
important issue is how people are going to continue to be able to 
educate their children from their youngest age all the way through 
higher education.
  One of the things I think it is important for us to highlight tonight 
is the devastating budget cuts that this Republican budget puts forward 
in terms of the public education needs that we have.
  Literally, the Republican House budget resolution would make the 
biggest cut, and I think I am right, correct me if I am wrong, the 
biggest cuts to the Department of Education in 23 years. I guess the 
only thing that would be worse would be when they proposed to 
completely eliminate the Department of Education, but they are not 
doing that. They simply have the biggest cut in 23 years.
  The budget resolution cuts next year's Department of Education budget 
by $2.2 billion, with a B, below this year's funding level. It matches 
the President's budget cuts in his budget proposal dollar for dollar. 
Rather than increase education funding, both of the budgets, the 
Republican leadership's budget and the President's, grossly underfund 
education, social services and training programs. They cut those 
programs $4.6 billion below the amount needed to maintain current 
services. They eliminate completely 42 different education programs, 
not ones that people would think are not necessary anymore, but things 
like vocational education, safe and drug free school State grants, a 
college readiness program for low income students and both parts of the 
Federal Perkins loan program. It is just really unbelievable. You 
talked about priorities. This is where the Republicans priorities are 
compared to where we are as Democrats.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the gentlewoman makes an 
important point, and I think one of the ways to help Americans 
understand what this really means to them because these numbers are 
very big, it is sort of hard to say, well, you cut $1 billion here, $1 
billion there, how does that matter in the lives of our constituents?
  The other day I met with some of the school superintendents in my 
district, and they told me, I will say all things are really new, but 
they were pleading with me because they said we want to be held 
accountable. We want our teachers, our schools to perform at the 
highest levels possible. So the concept of No Child Left Behind, in 
fact, we support it, as do I, but the fact that they are not getting 
the funding for that that the government promised to them, again it is 
about meeting our promises, about meeting our obligations to our 
children.
  If we said we will not leave any child behind, but then walk away, 
then we have, in fact, left them behind, and this is what is happening. 
For Americans who have children in schools, they know what that means. 
They are being challenged without additional resources, and it also 
means to all of us that our local and State taxes are likely to go up 
to make up for the difference.
  What we have done is pass along the burden to our State and local 
governments, and in fact Americans are going to have to pay for it one 
way or the other.
  I will just mention two other areas because I know I hear this a lot, 
and I am sure you do as well in education, and that is special 
education. I know when I served in the State Senate, I was the 
Democratic Chair of the Education Committee for a number of years. I 
served on the State Board of Education. We heard over and over again 
that there were remarkable new ways to educate children with many 
different needs.

                              {time}  2215

  More children are being identified with early childhood learning 
disabilities. In fact, early intervention is making an enormous 
difference in their being successful in school. Then, of course, there 
are some of the very seriously challenged students. When we passed the 
original legislation, not we, we weren't there then, we freshmen, but 
when the original legislation was passed, it was called IDEA, but when 
the special education legislation was passed, the Federal Government 
said, You know what, we want you to educate every child regardless of 
what their needs are and to challenge them to be the best they can be. 
And we are going to pick up 40 percent of the cost. Regardless of what 
it costs, we will pick up 40 percent. Well, they never have.
  So what does that mean? Right now the Federal Government is paying 
about 17 percent of that cost, not even half of what was promised years 
ago. So what that means is that local school districts are picking up 
the tab. States are picking up the tab. What we ought to be doing is 
meeting our commitments, meeting our obligations and being honest and 
straightforward with the American people, that this is what we promised 
to do, it is what you want us to do, it is what we should be doing.
  Last, you point out a college education. We talked about families 
already being stretched, but we are at a time when we know our young 
people and increasingly older people who also are being retrained or 
reeducated need to go to college. Sometimes it is a community college, 
sometimes it is a postsecondary technical college, sometimes it is a 4-
year university. But the fact is that we need to be sure that the best 
and brightest in this country have access to higher education. And we 
know we are competing not just with our neighboring States or our 
neighboring communities or even countries who used to be our trading 
partners, we are just a global economy, a global marketplace, and our 
young people have to be prepared.
  Yet what this budget does is, in fact, cut the Federal grants that so 
many people relied on to do their college education. So we are saying 
it is going to even be harder at a time when our

[[Page 7828]]

young people should be going to college, for you to be able to go to 
college, be successful and to be able to not be in so much debt when 
you come out of college.
  So, yes, could we do these things? That is what I get asked. Could we 
do these? The answer is, of course we could, if in fact we recognize 
that it is our priority, that we were honest about what kind of dollars 
we needed and we made it a priority in our budget instead of something 
else. Again, the Democratic alternative that will be available tomorrow 
does that.
  So, again, I hope that my constituents, your constituents understand 
that we come again as first-term Members with a real interest, maybe 
that is not strong enough, but a demand for us to do it better, to do 
it right, to meet these obligations and to do it this year as a 
beginning because we can't wait any longer. Whether it is on education, 
on higher education, whether it is on energy, whether it is on paying 
down the debt. These are things we have to start working on, on 
security, health care. We could go on for hours. Fortunately we are 
limited, from our viewers' point of view, to an hour. But the fact is 
that we have so many opportunities for us to be building that future 
for Americans, American children, American families. This budget simply 
doesn't do it. It is why we should reject it.
  Mr. CLEAVER. If the gentlewoman would yield, I found some money and I 
want to announce it right now to the world. If we rescind the tax cuts 
for individuals with an adjusted gross income in excess of $200,000, 
the revenue effect of that would be $24.5 billion in fiscal year 2007 
and over 5 years it would be $137 billion. The tax cuts that this 
Congress gave in 2001 and 2003 disproportionately benefited the 
wealthiest people of the Nation. At the same time we have been unable 
to increase the minimum wage from $5.15. And we are giving tax cuts to 
the wealthiest people in the country. The tax cuts that were given 
would allow the wealthiest Americans with 46.8 percent of the tax 
benefits proposed in the President's fiscal 2007 budget and extended 
from 2001 and 2003, it would benefit 4.1 percent of the taxpayers of 
this country. People who are going to get up early in the morning to 
drive to their job and most of the money they earn that day is to buy 
gasoline are not going to be thinking kindly of what is happening to 
them.
  There is a tsunami of frustration rolling across America. People are 
frustrated with what they see going on here. It is revealed in the 
polling data that is coming in from every polling source. It is 
bipartisan. Newspapers, whether they are the conservative Washington 
Post or the progressive New York Times are coming up with the same 
numbers, and that is the people of this country are frustrated. 
Incivility continues. We don't attack issues. We attack people. We 
don't try to come together and sit down and try to figure out ways in 
which we can help this country. We lock the doors. We lock people out 
of meetings. We won't allow a discussion or a debate on issues that are 
critically important to this Nation.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Cleaver, they do those things. It is the 
Republicans that do those things. I just want to point that out. When 
you are using ``we,'' that includes us and we don't do that.
  Mr. CLEAVER. That is absolutely correct. The reason that I used 
``we'' and it is a dangerous use of the word ``we,'' is that what many 
people see coming out of this body, they attribute to all of us when 
the truth of the matter is we don't have, we, those of us on this side, 
don't have the capacity because we are the minority, to effect the 
kinds of changes that I think we need to effect.
  And so the tsunami of frustration continues to roll across America. 
Something needs to be done. If not, I think that we are headed 
dangerously toward a number of crises, some of which this Nation has 
never ever experienced before.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Your comments, I think, do speak to the 
frustrations we hear from Americans. But I hope that as we end this 
evening's discussion, we can also leave with the understanding that 
Americans, I hope, will feel hopeful. Because, in fact, you point out 
that if we use common sense, if we use our political will, if we sit 
down to work out these issues, we could do that. I think that is what 
the American people expect of us and it is also something that I think 
as freshmen we are offering back, that we want to be able to say we can 
do this, we want to do it, we want to be able to tackle these problems 
and we want all of the best ideas, and there are so many out there, to 
be able to offer the American people the secure Nation that they want, 
the opportunities for their children economically and educationally and 
the kind of hope for the future that they all want.

                          ____________________