[Pages H5272-H5277]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Schmidt). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Meek) is
recognized for the remaining time until midnight.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Madam Speaker, it is an honor to address the
House. And we would like to also thank the Democratic leadership for
allowing us to have the time.
As you know, the 30-something Working Group, we come to the floor
daily to share not only with the Members of the House, but also the
American people, about plans we have that is in holding or in waiting,
not because of the fact that we are not willing to move forth on behalf
of the American people, it is because the Republican majority has
decided not to govern on the side of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that this is very, very hard core for everyday
Americans, because they are in waiting, not only in the area of minimum
wage, but also affordable fuel prices and real solutions as relates to
protecting our country and also making sure that our veterans who have
allowed us to serve, who have allowed us to salute one flag, will be
honored in the area of health care and other areas that we have
promised them.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to start off my comments, and I am glad Mr.
Delahunt is here, and I know others are on their way to the floor, to
at least talk about this minimum wage conversation that we are having
here on the floor of the House of Representatives. I feel that we
should take action. We want to take action on this side of the aisle,
Democrats united in making sure that some 6 million-plus Americans are
able to get a pay increase, something that Members of Congress have
enjoyed over a number of years, but everyday working Americans are not
able to receive more minimum wage than what they are receiving right
now. They are, right now, making $5 and some change. And I mean, it is
unconscionable, Mr. Speaker, for Members of the House to be able to
walk away with an increase, cost-of-living increase; meanwhile, those
individuals that are punching in and punching out every day, are still
making the same rate that they were making in 1997. It would be an
uproar here in this House if Members of Congress had not received a pay
raise since 1997.
One thing that I can say here on this side of the aisle, the
Democratic leadership and the Democratic Caucus has said we will not
stand for an increase for Members of Congress to make more money if we
are not going to raise the level of minimum wage for everyday
Americans.
And so, again, Mr. Speaker, we come with third-party validators. We
come with the facts to share with the American people, and we come to
let the American people know, and Members on the majority side, that we
have the will and the desire to lead, and we will if we have the
opportunity after November.
I just wanted to share a few things because there are a lot of folks
that are out there saying that they are fighting on behalf of the
everyday American. So I thought I would just bring a couple of visual
aids, and also some information. This is the source of the College
Board 2005 as it relates to the census and what Americans are dealing
with.
I want to start with this next chart here. I want to start with this
chart.
[[Page H5273]]
Minimum wage. And this is real economic change under Bush. Here you
have the minimum wage, Mr. Speaker, that is at zero starting in 1997 to
now. Since 1997 to now, whole milk has gone up 24 percent. Bread has
gone up 25 percent. A 4-year public college education has gone up 77
percent. Health care insurance has gone up 97 percent. Meanwhile,
Americans are still making $5 and change. Regular gas has gone up 136
percent, Mr. Speaker. Still no message from the Republican majority for
everyday working Americans that punch in and punch out every day.
{time} 2310
Here are some other statistics: still from 1997, no increase in the
minimum wage for everyday working Americans. College tuition has gone
up in private institutions 40 percent. Gas prices, again, as it relates
to the middle class, has gone up 47 percent and 55 percent for
prescription drugs. I think it is important that we look at those.
To go further, Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we share
this. The facts are hard, but they are true. In 1998 a Member of
Congress received a raise of $3,100. That was in 1998. In 1998 the
minimum wage was zero. Again, in 2000 Members of Congress received a
$4,600 raise. That is more money. Everyday working Americans in 2000,
minimum wage, zero, thanks to the Republican majority.
I just said in 2000, Mr. Delahunt, Members received a pretty
substantial raise. In 2001 Members of Congress received a $3,800 raise.
Of course, we are not minimum-wage workers. The American people in
2001, zero. Nothing. The Republican majority said they are not going to
have it. In 2002, again a $4,900, that is a lot of money, increase for
Members of Congress. The American people in 2002, zero.
It pays to have a voting card in Congress. You can give yourself a
raise, but the folks that elect you just have to suck it up.
Now, this is like on a roll here in Congress. In 2003, a $4,700
increase in Members of Congress' pay. The American people, guess what,
zero. Nothing at all, thanks to the Republican majority. In 2004, a
$3,400 raise for Members of Congress. Guess what, Members, American
people, minimum wage raises, zero.
These are the facts. I challenge any Member on the Republican side,
the majority, to come down and challenge me on these facts.
In 2005 it continues, a $4,000 raise. Once again, you are a Member of
Congress that comes up here, who say they are representing you, it is a
wonderful thing. Get a raise in 2005, $4,000. The American people,
zero, Mr. Speaker.
In 2006 Members of Congress' proposed raise, $3,100, Mr. Delahunt. My
9-year-old son and my 11-year-old daughter can guess, the American
people to this date, Mr. Speaker, zero.
Now, I want to go back to this chart because I think it is very
revealing and very accurate: ``I have been in this business for 25
years, and I never voted for an increase in the minimum wage and I am
opposed to it, and I think that a vast majority of our conference is
opposed to it.'' That is the leader of the Republican Congress. That is
the majority leader.
Now, Mr. Delahunt, there are Members that come to this floor and say
the Democrats are just demagoguing. There are people who come to this
floor and say we are for you; they are not for leading.
I think it is important, Mr. Delahunt, that we come to the floor and
share with the American people and the Members of Congress that we will
not rest even though we are in the minority, that we are still willing
to fight for them.
Now, the difference between the Republican majority and the
Democratic minority, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the majority has the
power to be able to make things happen here in this House on behalf of
the American people as it relates to the minimum wage, and it is fair
play. I went through this list. Pay increases year after year, $4,000
here, $4,700 there, $3,100 here, and zero since 1997 on behalf of the
American people who punch in and punch out every day.
Meanwhile, health care cost is up. Meanwhile, the cost of bread and
milk is up. Meanwhile, gas prices are up by 136 percent. But back at
the ranch and here in this House, the Members of Congress are being
taken care of. The special interests are being taken care of. But guess
what, the individuals who woke up early on a Tuesday morning for
representation are being left behind since 1997, and there are Members
on the majority side saying over their dead bodies, literally, will
they receive an increase because they are so indebted, Mr. Delahunt, to
their special interests.
So all we can fight with, Mr. Speaker, here is the fact, not fiction
but fact, that we have a Republican majority that is willing to govern
for the few, for those individuals who have the opportunity to come to
Washington and to be able to gain access through the K Street Project
and other programs that allow them to give politically and have gangs
here in the House.
A former Member of this House used to boast about the fact that if
they were not on the list of contributors, they couldn't come in and
see them. That is a former Member of the House, and if anybody wants to
challenge me on it from the majority side, I will be happy to reveal
that former Member's name. I think we all know, and it was an active
program in the House, and I believe there are still some elements of
that program now. The fact that special interests do not want an
individual making $5 and some change to receive a couple dollars'
increase is very unfortunate. And, Mr. Delahunt, I am very concerned
about that.
Let me just take 3 more minutes, Mr. Delahunt, and then I am going to
yield to you because you have some very interesting charts over there.
Let us talk about who is getting what. In the past you have heard me
read this, and I want to read it again because, when it comes down to
when their constituents want to know whose side they are on, I want the
Members to be armed with the facts.
I am proud that I am trying to do everything I can do on behalf of my
constituents back in the 17th Congressional District in Dade and
Broward County. But by their sending me to Congress and Mr. Delahunt to
Congress, they federalized us to represent the people of the United
States of America, and I think it is our obligation, Mr. Speaker, to
share the facts.
Members can follow me. They can go on Washingtonpost.com. This was an
article November 16, 2005, on the front page: ``A White House document
shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President
Dick Cheney's energy task force in 2001, something long suspected by
environmentalists but denied as recently as'' a week ago ``by industry
officials testifying before Congress. The document, obtained this week
by The Washington Post, shows that officials from the ExxonMobil
Corporation, Phillips, Shell Oil Company, and BP America Inc. met in
the White House complex with the Cheney aids who were developing
national energy policy, parts of which became law and parts of which
are still being debated'' here in the House.
This is an article. It is not from the Democratic Caucus. It is not
from my office or Mr. Delahunt's office.
Let us see what happened. That meeting, Mr. Delahunt and Members, was
in 2001. Here are the profit margins of big oil companies since that
meeting: in 2002 I think that was a pretty good meeting to go to, $34
billion in profits, thanks to the Republican majority's passing policy
that would allow oil companies to spend the taxpayers' dollars and to
be able to have subsidies and make these profits. In 2003 $59 billion
in profits. I think that meeting was worth going to and whoever
recommended and got them into the White House complex to meet with the
Cheney aides, I think they got a promotion and possibly a bonus.
{time} 2320
In 2004, $84 billion oil profits up. Guess who is paying for it? The
American people. In 2005, $113 billion in profits. And the numbers are
not even in from 2006.
Mr. Speaker, I know that these facts have to have some Members who
may be in their offices right now or sitting up in their beds feel
uncomfortable. But, unfortunately, that is not happening, because it
continues.
Why is this man smiling here? It is nothing against him. I don't have
anything personally against oil companies. They are getting what the
majority Republican Conference here in this House has allowed them to
have. It is
[[Page H5274]]
one thing for someone to say ``I will support you and your political
endeavors.'' It is another thing for you to say ``I am with you all the
way, even if it costs my constituents more at the pump.''
Here is a man that a lot of workers wish they had such a deal. A $398
million retirement package and a $2 million tax break ala the
Republican majority. An Exxon former executive.
It is almost, Mr. Speaker, unfair. Someone may say that. If I didn't
have the third-party validators, the Congressional Record and votes by
the majority to back up what I am saying, some folks would say that is
unfair. I wouldn't even be able to walk the halls of Congress or talk
to my colleagues on the Republican side if I wasn't telling the truth.
I think it is important that everyone understands, if you are a
Republican, you have to have a problem with what I just presented. You
have to. If you are a Democrat, you have to have a problem, the
information I am sharing with you that the Republican majority is
allowing to happen.
We on this side have called for an increase in the minimum wage. We
on this side have called for tough legislation on price gouging. We on
this side have talked about making ourselves energy independent; not
investing in the Middle East, but investing in the Midwest as it
relates to E-85.
So I think it is important that everyone understands when we are in
the majority, if the American people see fit, we will put forth policy
that will benefit all Americans. I think it is important.
If you are an independent, you have to have a problem with the fact
that Members of Congress have received thousands upon thousands of
dollars of raises since 1997, and still no response from the Republican
majority as it relates to the minimum wage.
Mr. Delahunt, those are the facts for now. This book is full of
facts. These books are full of action; balancing the budget, real
homeland security, where local communities don't have to tax themselves
because we have done away with the COPS Program. We made it difficult
for local communities to be able to apply for homeland security, home
front security, because, guess what, when something goes down in a
city, be it small or big, it won't be the Department of Homeland
Security showing up, it will be a local police department.
This is my last one here, and it is a real plan, ready to go, Mr.
Speaker, on energy. Anyone can go on House Democrats.gov and get all of
these plans. They just didn't come up tonight. We have been coming to
this floor, and now the American people are going to have an
opportunity to be not Democrats, not Republicans, not independents, but
voting on behalf of this country, and to make sure that we have
representation here in this House.
Mr. Delahunt?
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Meek, I want to commend you on that eloquent
exposition of the issues that I know resonate with the American people.
Could you do me a favor? Could you hold up that last book once more?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Which one?
Mr. DELAHUNT. The last one. Hold it up, will you.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. The energy plan. Yes, sir.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Just show it. I hope that those that are watching can
see the cover. Except I would expand on the title, ``Energy Plan.'' I
would add a dash, and I would add the words ``A Blueprint to Win the
War Against Terrorism,'' because therein, in that plan, lies the
secret, and it shouldn't be a secret, because I think it is obvious to
many of us, that if we can adopt an energy plan, no longer will we find
ourselves hostage to governments and societies that disagree with our
values. And that is the case now.
Six years into this administration, and gas has gone from $1.40 a
gallon at the pump to now it is over $3. The Middle East is
destabilizing.
But the reality is, and we spoke about this, myself and some other
colleagues earlier, today we are losing the war on terror. At least
that is the opinion of people, including the American people, in 34
countries out of 35 where a poll commissioned by the BBC was taken.
Just recently, a bipartisan group of experts in foreign policy and
national security concluded that we are losing the war on terror.
Now, in the previous hour my good friend from Iowa made the
observation, why should we care whether people like us or not? Why
should we care? Because, again, if you take a look other polls, and not
just, by the way, in the Middle East, but on every continent, the image
of the United States is poor. We are reviled. As the GAO said, anti-
American sentiment is broadening and deepening. Yet my friend from Iowa
says, why should we care?
I think what he meant is why should we care about those who are
sympathetic to or are active participants in acts of terror against the
United States, and that makes sense.
But we should care, Mr. Speaker. We should care about the rest of the
world, because if we are going to have success in the war on terror, we
need other people to help us. We cannot do it alone.
If I can just cite one example, Mr. Meek, in a story just last week
in the Washington Times, Secretary Rumsfeld was in Tajikistan, a
Central Asian country, and while he was there he expressed concern
about what is transpiring in Afghanistan. This is what he had to say,
if I can just ask for your indulgence for a minute. I have to put my
glasses on, Mr. Meek. You know I have a birthday coming up.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. It is tomorrow, Mr. Delahunt.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I didn't want the world to know that, but you let that
secret out.
The story reads, ``U.S. forces invaded Afghanistan in October 2001 to
oust the radical Taliban regime. Although the country now has a
democratically-elected government, the Taliban has been making a
comeback.''
Now to quote the Secretary. This is Mr. Rumsfeld. ``Western Europe
ought to have an enormous interest in the success of Afghanistan, and
it is going to take a lot more effort on their part for the Karzai
government to be successful.'' He was alluding to the President of
Afghanistan, Mr. Karzai.
{time} 2330
But what he is saying is Western Europe has got to help us more. So
what we are looking for is help from Western Europe to contribute
troops, to contribute resources so that that fragile democracy in
Afghanistan can survive.
So I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is important what the
British people think of the United States. Now, again, if you would
bear with me, let me go to an article, Mr. Speaker, that appears in the
New York Times dated July 3. Now, let's be really clear. This is not
Pakistan, this is not Tajikistan, this is not Mexico, this is not
Venezuela, this is not President Putin's Russia, this is the United
Kingdom, with whom it is written we have a special relationship, Mr.
Speaker.
Where we have had a relationship between our peoples that is
extraordinary for decades. Now, according to this poll, it was asked
whether the United States is doing a bad job in Iraq, is indifferent to
what the rest of the world thinks of it, and whether it is obsessed
with money.
Now, according to the pollster, in an analysis by him, this was one
of the prominent British papers that commissioned the poll, it
indicated that there has never been a time when America was held in
such low esteem on this side of the Atlantic.
The special relationship that British leaders have long believed
exists between their country and the United States may still live in
Downing Street and at Camp David, but it has atrophied among the
British public.
Among the responders in the new poll, Mr. Meek, 77 percent did not
see America as a beacon of hope for the world. Asked to rate President
Bush as a leader, more than three-quarters described him as either
pretty poor or terrible. Seventy-two percent said his foreign policy,
instead of being driven by a desire to build democracy, was merely a
cover for American interests.
About two-thirds of responders said that they believed that American
troops were doing a bad job in trying to win the hearts and minds in
Iraq. Eighty-three percent of responders said the United States does
not care what the rest of the world thinks.
We should care. To answer the question that was put forth by my
friend and our colleague from Iowa, the reason that we have to care is
because we live in a world. If we are going to
[[Page H5275]]
achieve our goals, we have to do them in a multi-lateral way. We need
the British people to support us. We need the Irish people, we need
people all over this world. We want to reach out and be that beacon of
hope.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, you know it would be nice if the
American people supported this administration. It would be nice if the
administration had a policy that the American people could support, or
that in spite of the incredible lack of support for the American
people, it would be nice if the administration actually showed that
that mattered to them, instead of continuing down the path of ``staying
the course'' and doing exactly as they think is right and to heck with
what anyone else in America thinks.
I mean, of course we care about our place in the world, and about the
vision that we are viewed through, the lens we are viewed through. But
I do not understand why the administration and why this President and
this Republican leadership, our colleagues, do not seem to care or
understand how the American people are viewing them.
I mean, there are a number of issues I know you have gone over
tonight, the minimum wage is one of them. I have been witnessing the
hearings that have been taking place around the country on border
security and the argument over whether border security or an earned
path to citizenship is more important.
And what I think has been extremely humorous is that the Republicans
on the other side, the Members on the other side of the aisle, in the
other body, adhering to the rules, Mr. Speaker, have taken to calling
the McCain-Hagel, I think there is another Republican that is part of
that legislation. It is two or three Republicans that are heading it
up. And Martinez, our own Senator from Florida.
But McCain, and Hagel and Martinez are heading up that legislation.
Yet now they seem to be calling it, or attempting to call it the Reid-
Kennedy bill or the Reid-Kennedy bill, neither of whom are sponsors of
that legislation.
So what they are trying to do is lead the American people, and if
they say it enough times so that they believe it, that it is the
Democrats that are taking the initiative on this immigration policy
when it is clearly Republicans.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Are you aware, and again I know we are changing
subjects here, but I do not know if you are aware that there has been a
decline in the number of enforcement actions against employers for
hiring undocumented workers.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Not only am I aware of that, Mr. Delahunt,
thank you for leading me right into that lovely chart that we have
here, that graphically depicts the differences between border security
and immigration under a Democratic administration versus border
security under this Republican Bush administration.
Let us peruse the numbers. The Republicans have been talking a good
game about how important border security truly is to them, especially
our colleagues here in the House. They have been beating that drum over
and over again.
Mr. DELAHUNT. If I can interrupt just once more. Of course you are
aware that the Republicans have been in the majority in this chamber
for 12 years.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Well, I am quite aware of that, they have been
well within control of this institution for 12 years.
Mr. DELAHUNT. They have controlled the White House.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. For 6 years.
Mr. DELAHUNT. They have controlled the United States Senate I think
for 10 out of 12 years
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So this was entirely theirs.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I think it is important that people understand that and
understand who is Washington, D.C.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Entirely within their control to crack down on
border security, to hire more Border Patrol agents, enforcement actions
against employers who hire illegal immigrants illegally.
So let's take a look at the numbers. We use third party validators.
By the way, it is a pleasure to join you here once again, my 30
Something colleagues. I apologize for not doing that initially when I
began, just jumping in.
But let us look at the average number of new border patrol agents
added per year under the Clinton administration from 1993 to 2000,
versus the Bush administration between 2001 and 2005. Under President
Clinton, 642 per year border patrol agents were added per year. And
under President Bush they have added an average of 411.
Now there is some real commitment to border security. How about we
look at the INS, which is now CIS. But the INS fines for immigration
enforcement, that is fines against employers who hired illegal
immigrants illegally and have gotten caught.
Okay. Under the Democratic administration in 1999, President Clinton
was in office, there were 417 cases where INS fined employers for
hiring, for getting caught hiring illegal immigrants. Guess how many
there were in 2004, a year in which President Bush was in office?
{time} 2340
Mr. DELAHUNT. That was the year that some started to express concern
about border enforcement.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Yes. That is when you started to hear the drum
beginning to beat, and beat very loudly.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Can you tell us what that number is, as compared to the
417 under President Clinton?
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I would be glad to. We went from 417
immigration enforcement actions against employers under President
Clinton to 3. Three under President Bush in 2004.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Three, one, two, three.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. If I tried to count to 417, the hour would
end, and we wouldn't be able to say anything else. So I will move on to
the next one.
How about when we are talking about immigration fraud cases? If the
Republicans are so committed to border security and making sure that we
crack down on illegal immigrants and prevent the people who don't
belong here and who are coming here the wrong way, then you would think
that there would be many, many more cases under the Republicans than
the Democrats. But in 1995, a year in which we had a Democratic
President, there were 6,455 cases pursued against immigration fraud.
Then you fast-forward to 2003 under the Bush administration, the
Republican administration, a year in which supposedly you had an
entirely Republican-controlled government, and the ability for them to
actually pursue more than 6,455 cases. They pursued 1,389, a 78 percent
drop.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Could I just submit a hypothesis for a minute?
You know, one of the leaders in the neoconservative movement, a Mr.
Grover Norquist, coined an interesting term called shrinking
government, until it practically disappears. This neoconservative
ideology, I suggest, is responsible for those statistics. Because what
we have done in the past 6, 8 years, is reduced government to the point
when no longer are we adequately enforcing our laws as well as our
border.
So what we see is a real problem that was created by this Republican
majority working with a Republican President.
Did you have a chance, by any stretch, to reading the lament of the
former Speaker of this House, Mr. Gingrich?
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I did, actually. I think we also have a
graphic depiction of that. But really what this comes down to, Mr.
Delahunt, is a clear indication of who is for immigration enforcement
and border security, and who is just kidding; who is in favor of
putting action behind the words, and who just speaks the words.
There is one more statistic that was more difficult to graphically
depict, so I will go through this last one, which is also important,
because the Bush administration has touted that in its first 5 years,
it caught and returned 6 million undocumented individuals. That is
actually a drop in any 5-year period under the Clinton administration.
So, you know, this is all just a lot of puffery, a whole lot of
chest-pounding, which they seem to be really, really good at. But when
you scratch below the surface, just a little bit, there is no depth,
there is nothing there.
[[Page H5276]]
And, clearly, the former House Speaker, Mr. Gingrich, the warrior,
arguably the architect of the so-called Republican revolution, he has
had a few things to say, as we talked about our 30-something hours on
this. As recently as July 14th, which was 4 days ago, this was him
commenting on the broken system in Washington.
He said, Congress really has to think about how fundamentally wrong
the current system is.
When facing crises at home and abroad, he said, it is important to
have an informed, independent legislative branch coming to grips with
this reality and not sitting around and waiting for Presidential
leadership.
Clearly when it comes to border security and immigration, there
hasn't been a whole lot of Presidential leadership, not when it comes
to action. He has been real good at talking.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Can you tell me what his solution to the crisis that
this country is now facing in terms of its democratic institutions and
its relationship between a White House that has acquired incredible
power and a Congress that continues to see power to the point where it
has become a rubber stamp for a President that has no restraints
whatsoever? What does Newt Gingrich say is that solution?
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. That is what has been truly unbelievable. This
leadership, our Republican colleagues, have just been totally willing
to cede power, just give up the legislative authority that we have, and
say, Mr. President, you take it, we are out.
So Mr. Gingrich had something else to say just the other day. He said
the correct answer is for the American people to just start firing
people.
I don't think he was talking about anything other than this fall
during the elections, because they are not, they are clearly, they
clearly do not have their priorities straight. They clearly only speak
words and don't back them up with action. They clearly only bob their
heads up and down like the bobble-head Republicans that they have been
and rubber-stamp everything that the President asks them to do.
There it is right there. There is the big old Republican rubber stamp
which each of them has essentially wrapped their arms around and agreed
to adhere to.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Well, I would suggest that that is a remarkable
statement by an individual who led the Republican Party to a majority
in this House.
When he says it is time for the American people to start firing
everyone, that is to me a demonstration that he recognizes that the
government is not functioning as it ought to function. We are allowing
this institution, this House, to wither.
Government isn't withering; it is not government, it is Congress that
is allowing democracy to wither. That is dangerous.
Unless you have a Congress that stands up and says no, and serves as
a true check and balance, then you have a democracy that is at risk.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Delahunt, I can't help but grab this rubber
stamp and help the Members realize that they are making history in all
the wrong ways. This rubber-stamp Republican majority has allowed this
President to have free rein, not only on everyday American workers,
retirees, veterans and the American taxpayer dollars, this President
rubber stamped, okayed by this Republican majority, has borrowed $1.05
trillion from foreign nations. At no other time in the history of this
Republic, in 4 years or in 224 years, has that amount of money been
borrowed.
The Republican rubber-stamp Congress has allowed that to happen.
Now we have OPEC countries, Japan, China, Korea, Caribbean, Germany,
you name it. They are borrowing. Canada, they are buying our debt. We
are borrowing from them. The Republican majority allowed the Bush White
House to get what they want as it relates to a rubber stamp.
Like I said, it is not even fair. I mean, Time magazine, freshly
minted, the 17th edition, folks can either get it in the mail or buy
it, I don't have any stock in Time Warner or anything.
{time} 2350
This is where we are because this time right now, when the President
and the 109th Congress is history making, not history making being the
Congress that did so much for the American people but the Congress that
allows the President of the United States to get this country in a
position that it is in because the checks and balances that are in the
Constitution and how we are supposed to govern and carry out oversight
was not adhered to.
Here it is, Time magazine, The End of Cowboy Democracy, what Korea,
Iraq and Iran teaches us about the limits of going it alone. And then
you go on to page 20, and it talks about how the White House has just
now realized that they have a problem.
Now, it would be okay if it was just the White House, and this is not
about the President. The President is the President of the United
States. He is not running again for reelection, but Members of the
House have to run every 2 years, every 6 years in the Senate.
It goes on and it outlines quotes from people that were formerly in
the administration, folks that are in the administration now, and they
are saying now they realize that they have a problem. Well, it is not
them. It is the United States of America. You heard Mr. Delahunt
talking about the people in the U.K. Guess what, the people in the U.K.
have bought $223.2 billion of our debt. This is what they think about
us. Leave alone that. Ms. Wasserman Schultz talked about what the
American people think about us.
So the alternative, in my opinion, is that we have plans on this side
that is being not only demagogued by the Republican majority but not
even allowed to come to the floor. HouseDemocrats.gov, okay, energizing
America, farmers fueling our energy independence. Here is a little
short piece on it, bigger plan.
Real Security, on the Web site once again, ready to go, will not be
heard here on the House. Republican majority does not want to hear it
because they feel they have the master plan and that everything is in
line. You heard Ms. Wasserman Schultz talk about enforcement of illegal
workers under the Bush administration, the funding of border agents.
The facts are the facts.
The Innovation Agenda, CEOs of American companies are saying we are
ready to have math and science teachers; we are ready to work on real
innovation in turning out the next workforce that we need. Republican
majority talks about it but has not acted on it.
So I think it is important that we continue to share this with the
American people. It may be repetitive. We may have to use Mr. Gingrich
quotes. We may have to use Time magazine and other national
publications and periodicals to drive the point home. It does not
matter what your party affiliation is. It should not matter who you
voted for in the last election.
What should matter is that you are a citizen of the United States of
America and you care about this country. So when your children and
grandchildren ask the question, Mama, Granddaddy, Aunt, Uncle, what
were you doing when all this was going on; were you just saying I am a
Republican and I am voting Republican because I am a Republican? Were
you saying I am a Democrat, I was voting for the person that ran the
most commercials and sent me stuff through the mail and saying that I
am the best? Oh, or I am an Independent, and you know, I just thought
it was probably politically correct and cool for me to vote for the
people that were in the majority so I can hopefully be on the
prevailing side?
One thing I can say is now the American people are saying they would
much rather have a Democratic Congress, probably not because that they
feel now I am so-called a Democrat. No, they see what is going on. They
see the minimum wage not going up. They see the prices going up at the
pump. They see what other countries are saying about us, and they see
the lack of oversight and enforcement by this Congress.
This Congress, the Republican majority would much rather get an
invitation to the White House and have dinner and tea and cookies to be
at a party of 200 people than to provide representation on behalf of
the American people.
Mr. DELAHUNT. You know what, it is time for Congress to stand up and
insist on answers to hard questions.
Let me go back to Iraq for one moment. I heard a rumor that the Iraqi
[[Page H5277]]
prime minister intends to come to Washington soon. I think we all
deserve an answer to a question that was raised by one of our leaders
in the Democratic Party, Jan Schakowsky, who circulated a Dear
Colleague today.
Maybe you have not heard this yet, but the Iraqi prime minister,
where we have spent close to half a trillion dollars and 2,600
Americans have died, the head of their parliament, Mahmoud al-
Mashhadani said these offensive words. He ``accused `Jews' of financing
acts of violence in Iraq in order to discredit Islamists who control
the parliament and government so they can install their `agents' in
power.''
These are his words: ``Some people say `we saw you beheading,
kidnappings and killing. In the end we even started kidnapping women
who are our honor.' These acts are not the work of Iraqis. I am sure
that he who does this is a Jew and the son of a Jew. I can tell you
about these Jewish, Israelis and Zionists who are using Iraqi money and
oil to frustrate the Islamic movement in Iraq and come with the agent
and cheap project.''
This is what my friend from Iowa was earlier talking about democracy?
What kind of democracy would tolerate and countenance that kind of
virulent, anti-Semitic remark from the Speaker of the parliament? The
same Iraqi government that has a bilateral military agreement with
Iran. Does this say something about the policy of this administration
that has enhanced the power and influence of Iran in the region, Iran
by the way, who is the sponsor of Hamas and Hezbollah and we know and
the whole world knows what is happening today in Lebanon and the Gaza
strip?
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. So, instead of changing course and moving us
in a new direction, the Republicans want to continue to go in the
direction that we are continuing, that Americans are so frustrated
with.
This very week they are going to focus on the politics of distraction
because, as we shine a light on what is really going on, then the
American people would become even more frustrated than they already
are.
Mr. Speaker, all of our charts in the 30 Something Working Group and
the things we discussed tonight will be up on our Web site. People can
log on to www.HouseDemocrats.gov/30Something. We encourage the Members
to take a look at all the things we have got up there, and I yield back
to Mr. Meek to close us out.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Thank you so very much. I would like to thank
Mr. Delahunt also and all the Members of the 30 Something Working Group
for coming together with an outstanding presentation tonight for the
Members of the House.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Where was Mr. Ryan this evening?
Mr. MEEK of Florida. I do not know. We need to see what happened to
Mr. Ryan tonight, but I am pretty sure there is a good excuse for him
not being here.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz talked about a new direction for America. We
want to make sure that health care is more affordable for all
Americans, and we also want to make sure that we have lower gas prices,
helping our working families, also cutting college costs and ensuring
dignity in retirement and also requiring fiscal responsibility, pay-as-
we-go.
With that, Mr. Speaker, we would like to thank the Democratic
leadership for allowing us to have the time, and it was an honor to
address the House tonight
____________________