[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 24 (Wednesday, March 1, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H493-H499]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 4, 2005, the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Wasserman Schultz)
is recognized for 60 minutes.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, it is said that imitation is the
sincerest form of flattery, Mr. Speaker. And it has been interesting to
listen to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
For the last number of years we have had the privilege on our side of
the aisle of the leader giving the 30-something Democrats the
opportunity to take the floor each night at least for 1 hour, if not 2,
to talk about the things that are important to America and, in
particular, important to our generation. So now it is nice to see that
at least the other side is beginning to recognize that this is an
important venue to get some information out to the people. As I said,
imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
There are times, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to agree and times
that we are going to disagree. The gentleman from Texas and I were just
commiserating, and he and I were both elected just over 13 months ago
and sworn into this esteemed body. And I was just joking with him that
the chart that he just brought out and talked about related to the
United Arab Emirates voting record with the United States and the
United Nations is actually a document that I had with me right here in
my hand and was one of the things that I was going to discuss as well.
Because I think this port deal, normally we talk about our
differences in the 30-something Working Group with the Republicans on
the other side of the aisle; in this case, I am heartened to see, at
least for some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we have
not differed on the really deep concern that many of us have as a
result directly of our constituents' feedback on this port deal with
Dubai Ports World and the administration.
When I can concur with my colleagues, I will do that. In this case,
the administration has repeatedly indicated what a good friend the UAE
is to the United States. And we only have very few examples that we can
utilize to determine what the definition of ``friend'' is.
One measure of friendship is certainly how often they support us in
terms of human rights and the other important issues that come up in
the United Nations. There is a pitiful record that the United Arab
Emirates has. And in terms of supporting us in the United Nations, not
only is it pitiful but it was not so good before 2001, and it has only
gotten worse since 2001.
So I stand here and am able to say that I am glad to see that our
colleagues have at least pointed out that there is deep concern on the
part of the legislative branch, at least some of us in the legislative
branch, about the continued rapid-fire movement forward on this port
deal.
{time} 1915
I continue to scratch my head, we continue to scratch our heads on
our side of the aisle, at the brazen nature of the defense that the
President has engaged in of this deal. The revelation that came to
light less than a week ago now that this is a deal that the President
was not even aware of. And I sit on the Domestic and International
Monetary Policy, Trade and Technology Subcommittee, which had a hearing
today. Not only did we learn that the President did not have any
knowledge of this deal but neither did the Secretary that was
responsible for each of these agencies that is part of the process to
approve the deal nor the Deputy Secretary nor the Under Secretary under
them nor the Under Secretary under them. Three levels below the
Secretary of each of the agencies responsible for reviewing the foreign
investment deals that are proposed to occur in the United States, that
was the level of awareness that there was in the agencies like the
Department of Homeland Security, like the Department of State, like the
intelligence agencies that are involved in the process of approving
this. That is so disturbing, it is hard to explain.
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in the time that I have been in
Congress and, quite honestly, since I spent 12 years prior to being in
Congress in the Florida legislature, and I will even include the 13
years combined that I have served in public office, I have not seen or
gotten feedback this quickly and in this enormity in as short a period
of time on an issue as I have on this proposed port deal. And I am
talking about compared to Social Security privatization, the Medicare
prescription drug program.
I get a lot of responses and feedback on those issues, but they are
lengthy and voluminous over a period of time. I have little old ladies
and elderly gentlemen call my office, I represent a large senior
citizen population, calling my office crying because they are in fear.
I represent an area that includes the Port of Miami. My district abuts
the Port of Miami. I had an opportunity to tour the Port of Miami
Terminal Operating Company and saw firsthand what the potential threat
is in the event that this company owned by the United Arab Emirates
goes astray in the event that we no longer consider them an ally down
the road, that there is absolutely no question that there is a
potential national security risk. And for the President and his
administration to continue to insist that there is not a national
security risk when it is clear that they have not even begun to examine
this potential risk closely, that is just shocking.
We have had a number of different revelations that have occurred over
the last week, not the least of which is that the Coast Guard brought
up their concern during the process, the CPS process, the Committee on
Foreign Investment in the United States. During that committee's
process, the Coast Guard raised concerns. The Department of Homeland
Security raised concerns. And let me back up for a second because
although there are millions of people who have been paying attention to
this, let me take this opportunity to back up for a second and just
explain what it is I am talking about.
Of course, so many people are aware that there is a proposal that was
considered over the last several months but that only recently came to
light by most people in this administration, most people responsible
for this decision. It only recently came to light in the last several
weeks where we have learned that Dubai Ports World, which is a company,
a foreign corporation, owned 100 percent by the government of the
United Arab Emirates, is in the process of closing a deal. The deal is
supposed to closed tomorrow. They have purchased an interest in P&O, a
stevedoring company; and after tomorrow when the deal closes, they will
now own and operate the terminal operating companies at six of our
major ports. Six major ports.
When you have a proposal like that in the United States, it is
supposed to go through the Committee on Foreign Investment in the
United States. That is made up of a number of different agencies in the
United States. It is supposed to include people like the Secretary of
Homeland Security, Secretary of State. The Secretary of the Treasury
chairs it. You have numerous intelligence agencies that have the
highest level, or are supposed to have the highest level, of
Secretaries serving on that committee, and they go through a review
process, by law. This is a law that they are supposed to follow whereby
they take it through a 30-day review process. And after that 30-day
review, if there are national security concerns, then that is supposed
to
[[Page H494]]
trigger an additional 45-day review, a national security review, so
that we can investigate whether there are national security
implications to the foreign investment in the United States.
Now, given that the United Arab Emirates just 5 years ago was
referred to 58 times in the 9/11 Commission report as having some level
of involvement with the 9/11 attacks, knowing that just on the surface,
how is it possible that a 45-day national security review was not
triggered? Where were the alarm bells? Where was the concern? I mean,
one has only to tour the terminals, like I did last week at the Port of
Miami, downtown Miami, literally just across the water from the port,
and see the devastating potential impact if you have just one or two
people. There were not thousands of people that planned the 9/11
attack. It only takes a few determined terrorists to wreak havoc and
horror on our Nation. And honestly, it would take almost no one to
engage in a terrorist act, God forbid, in the event that our
relationship with the United Arab Emirates somehow changes in the near
future or down the road. But we will have no mechanism to remove them
from our country.
What happens, and what I learned when I went to the Port of Miami to
see firsthand the problem, what happens is that it is not that the
United Arab Emirates or Dubai Ports World is going to run our ports.
That is not accurate. But they are going to have control of the largest
terminal operating company, and this is just in Miami, the largest
terminal operating company that is responsible for loading and
unloading containers in the Port of Miami. There are a million
containers that go through the Port of Miami every single year, a
million. And this company that is owned by the UAE is going to be in
charge of the loading and unloading of those containers. What I learned
when I went to the Port of Miami was that while they are not in charge
of the security or running the port itself, each terminal operating
company is responsible for their own security internally in their
terminals and on their property. So because you have a million
containers going through the Port of Miami, that is a whole lot of the
security measures that are taken on the Port of Miami and that this
company, and as a result the UAE, is responsible for.
In addition, what is equally disturbing is that the individuals in
the companies that run these terminal operating companies, they have an
intimate knowledge of the security measures that are taken on the port
grounds itself. So we know two things. One, they are responsible for
security within their own terminal for those million containers. One
million containers at least at the Port of Miami go in and out of there
over the course of a year. And their personnel also have intimate
knowledge of the security measures taken at the port every single day.
It only takes one or two rogues, it only takes one or two bitter
people, it only takes one or two people who differ even with the
government of the UAE, if they currently are our friends, and I would
argue that given their track record in terms of the support or lack of
support for things we care about in the United Nations and for a number
of other reasons that they are not the friends that President Bush
represents that they are, but it does not take more than one or two
people who hold hate in their heart for the United States and our
people to wreak havoc on us. They are not just this close. They would
be here. They would be here on our ports on our grounds.
Let us take this a step further because beyond just the United
Nations votes that my colleagues talked about and that I just
mentioned, we also have the United Arab Emirates that is a member of
the Arab League of Nations. The Arab League of Nations is currently
engaged in a boycott of the State of Israel. The United Arab Emirates
supports that boycott. Now, Israel is the United States' strongest ally
in the Middle East. So now we have a second layer of evidence that the
United Arab Emirates is not a very good friend of the United States.
How could we allow, both for national security reasons and for economic
fairness reasons, a country like the United Arab Emirates to do
business and to purchase a very significant terminal operating company
in our six major ports and allow them to do that kind of business here
when they refuse to do business with the State of Israel, our strongest
ally in the Middle East? That is unconscionable.
And with all due respect, the President touts his support for the
State of Israel and what a good friend this President has been to the
State of Israel. Well, I think we have one example here where he is not
being such a good friend to the State of Israel if he could turn the
other cheek and vociferously defend a business deal even in spite of
the fact that this country denies the State of Israel's legitimacy in
terms of their existence and engages in harm to the State of Israel by
supporting an economic boycott. So to me the proof is in the pudding. I
think words are nice, but actions are a whole lot better. Up and down
this deal is disturbing.
Now, another colleague of mine, Congressman Bachus from the State of
Alabama, again I want to cite he is also a colleague of mine from the
other side of the aisle, in the subcommittee hearing today, he talked
about the fact that in the United Arab Emirates, they will not allow
the United States to have 100 percent ownership of a company on their
port; yet we are allowing the United Arab Emirates to have a 100
percent ownership of a company in our port. And when he asked the
administration to explain that, they had no explanation. He was going
to have to get back to us. Well, of course he was going to have to get
back to us because there is no explanation for that. This is a matter
of fairness. This is a matter of what is wrong versus what is right,
and this is a matter of national security.
Now, here is where I am going to part company with my colleagues on
this because it is wonderful that many of my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle are opposing, rightfully so, this port deal and
joining Democrats on our side of the aisle in our concern, our deep and
grave concern in opposition to this port deal. However, it would have
been far nicer if they had not come so late to the dance in terms of
their recognizing that port security is a deep and troubling problem
that we have in the United States.
We currently check less than 5 percent of the containers that come
through our ports in the United States. Now, that is bad enough. But
over the course of the last 5 years, and this is something else I
learned when I went to the Port of Miami last week, the difference
between our appropriations for airport security, in 5 years we have
appropriated an additional $18 billion for airport security and less
than $700 million for port security. Now, I just could not believe when
I learned how lopsided the difference in security measures were. If I
am a terrorist, and I am not, but if I am a terrorist, it really does
not take a smart terrorist to recognize that if you have that lopsided
a difference in terms of the money we have spent to shore up our
security at our airports versus our ports, where do you think the weak
spot is, and where do you think they are most likely to zero in on in
terms of attack?
They are most likely to zero in on port security and that weakness.
And now what do we do? Without a national security review, without any
concern expressed by this administration whatsoever, we allow a country
that just 5 years ago was involved in terms of financing, allowing the
financing, housing the 9/11 terrorists, allowing the financing of that
attack and, in addition to that, allowing the transport of nuclear
material through their country to the state of Iran. That is not
allowing, it is not even strong enough to say that that is allowing the
fox into the hen house. It is not strong enough to say that.
Where we part company with our friends on the other side of the aisle
is in terms of our support for port security, because time and again,
Mr. Speaker, the Democrats in this Chamber have proposed increases in
funding for port security. We have proposed going from the 5 percent to
100 percent in terms of checking the containers that come through our
ports.
{time} 1930
Each time we have offered an amendment that would do that, that would
accomplish that. The Republicans in this body have rejected it,
rejected it with their red lights on that board right above your head,
Mr. Speaker.
And that is just so incredibly disturbing, because it is very nice to
[[Page H495]]
stand here on this floor and verbally oppose this ports deal on
national security grounds, but when we have an opportunity to do
something about it, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see my colleagues join
us not just with words, but with their actions as well.
I would like to see them support the Appropriations Committee ranking
member on our side, Mr. Obey from Wisconsin. He proposed last year and
the year before just a 5 percent decrease in the tax cuts for our
wealthiest Americans who make more than $1 million a year, the
wealthiest, arguably no skin off their noses; and to spend that money,
I believe it was an additional $750 million, I have to double-check
that number, but to be able to come close to spending an additional $1
billion on port security just by dropping the tax cut for our
wealthiest Americans by 5 percent.
And that was rejected. The Democrats voted for it and the Republicans
voted against it.
So it is very nice, and I am pleased to see, and I have been yearning
as a freshman, it is the thing that has caused me the most concern,
consternation. Over the course of the last year, my good friend from
Texas and I have talked about it many a time; we serve on the Judiciary
Committee together. There is too much animosity in this Chamber. There
are too many differences. We focus more on our differences than we do
on our potential alliances.
This is a time when we have an opportunity to come together. I would
like to see us come together in words and in deeds. We have that
opportunity here, and it would be great. I am hopeful that henceforth
we are going to be able to lock elbows and move together to oppose this
deal and to address the national security concerns that deals like this
present.
I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my friend from Florida
yielding.
We get into Washington, we get up here around the Capitol, we all
have our committees and subcommittees, all these things we are trying
to oversee and do. I was not aware that it was as easy as apparently it
is for a foreign company to manage, own, lease terminals in our ports.
Were you aware of that?
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. No. I wasn't aware of that either. I was
shocked.
Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate the gentlewoman's comments, and I hope we
can work together, not only to shore up an avenue of entry through our
ports, as you pointed out. We would not let somebody, a foreign
government, a foreign-owned company, even our close friends, I would
not think, operate an airport or bring their own planes in. Yes, you
can check them, we will let Customs do their thing. We wouldn't do
that.
We wouldn't lease a bridge to someone else to operate or manage, I
wouldn't think. Gosh, I would hope not.
Anyway, I hope that we can work together towards securing the avenues
of entry into this country, because I don't know if you heard me saying
it earlier, the gentlelady from Florida, but we all want to be secure.
But if we don't secure our outer perimeter, then people that want to
hurt us will come in, and then you lose due process rights at that
point in order to be secure. I don't want to do that.
So I appreciate your comments and your heartfelt notions on this
issue, and hope we can work together.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I look
forward to that, and I appreciate the gentleman's comments.
I have legislation that I have introduced just today that your
colleague from Texas, Mr. Poe, has joined me on that would prohibit
foreign-government-owned companies from owning terminal operating
companies. I would love to have you as a cosponsor of that legislation.
I hope you lead your conference beyond this port deal and your
opposition to it to trying to shore up the port security at our
Nation's ports, because unfortunately, your party has been less than
supportive of trying to do that. I appreciate you being willing to
engage in some dialogue with us. Thank you so much.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman
would yield, I thank the gentlewoman for taking this time and for
making the remarks that she did.
I was in my office working and listening to your presentation, and
not only did you lay out a cogent case why this deal with Dubai World
Ports makes no sense at all in terms of the security interests of our
country, but also the other reasons that you pointed out in terms of
their role, in terms of the boycott on Israel and all the other issues
of concern there.
But as I left my office, you were also talking about the fact that we
have a port security system that still has an awful lot of holes in it.
The number of containers, we were told by the CIA that the most likely
attack on America would be in a dirty bomb or weapon of mass
destruction inside of a container. Now, 4 years later, we still find
ourselves where we are inspecting those containers once they arrive in
Florida or the San Francisco Bay area in my district, which is far too
late.
So even if you thought it would be a good idea to outsource the
ownership of these ports to a foreign entity, you certainly would not
do it when you have the kind of port security system that we have in
place today with so many, so many flaws in that system.
There has been a lot of suggestions about how to get this done. There
are ports around the world engaging in very serious screening of these
containers, but not all of the ports from which we receive cargo.
So I just wanted to join the gentlewoman in her remarks, because I
think there are two issues here. One, this is a real bad deal and
doesn't make any sense. People in my district were stunned when the
President would say one day he was going to veto it and the next day he
hadn't been told about it. He was so well informed he was going to veto
it, but not well informed enough to discuss it, because he hadn't seen
the deal.
Then, secondly, they think about the problems that we are having
trying to secure this worldwide traffic in containers, and they just
think that somebody has lost their mind in terms of starting at this
point the outsourcing of these ports to foreign ownerships and then, of
course, to a country-owned company that has a lot of questionable
activities in its background with respect to terrorism and other items.
I just want to thank the gentlewoman for raising these issues. I
think it is important, and it is important that they continue to be
raised during this 45-day period.
Thank you and the other 30-Somethings for doing this.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is a privilege to have you down here. The
gentleman from California has been a leader for many years. Obviously,
there are some significant national security concerns that the State of
California has.
We have got to make sure that we have the long-term security
interests and needs of this country addressed going forward, and that
this debate and dialogue not just be isolated just to this deal. This
deal affects six ports in our country, six significant ports. Dubai
Ports World will also own terminals and other interests at many other
ports in our country. This is actually bigger than this one-port deal.
This is a matter of national security. This is a matter of trying to
ensure that, going forward, we fill this gaping hole in our national
security.
The two of you sit on the Armed Services Committee. Obviously, you
are engaged every single day. Mr. Meek serves on the Homeland Security
Committee and has intimate knowledge of the significant problems we
have.
Before I turn it over to one of the two of you, I think that what Mr.
Miller just said is really important to note. Actually, let me go back
to what the gentleman from Georgia was saying before you all got here
and before I began the 30-something hour.
The gentleman from Georgia made reference to how wonderful it is that
we have a legislative process and a system of checks and balances and
that the Congress can engage in oversight. It should be noted that the
oversight we are engaging in now, we are forcing, we are taking it upon
ourselves, because it certainly hasn't been oversight supported by this
administration. In fact, the President threatened last week that if we
dared to pass any legislation that halted this deal, his all-important
business deal, he would veto it.
[[Page H496]]
Now, that doesn't really sound very democratic. It appears to me that
this President cares a lot about exporting democracy and not a lot
about practicing it.
So I just think that is an important piece of information that our
citizens in this country should understand: who is concerned about
looking out for our national security interests. It doesn't appear that
the administration is.
I would be happy to yield to either of the gentlemen.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Well, I 100 percent agree with you.
You know, the fact that they could even claim that there is some kind
of oversight going on is an absolute joke. Anybody who has even been
paying the least bit of attention to what has been happening here the
past 4 or 5 years can see that there hasn't been any oversight.
The discussion tonight has been about foreign countries running our
ports, as if this is the first time, or as if this hasn't been going
on. Other countries have, piece by piece, been taking more and more of
the United States of America.
In the last 4 years, this has been the increase in our national debt:
$1.18 trillion has been the increase of that debt that this Nation, the
Republican House, the Republican Senate and the Republican President
have run up. $1.16 trillion of that has been borrowed from foreign
interests.
Of this number, this is what we get from foreign interests, and this
is what we borrow from domestic interests. This is piecemeal, piece by
piece by piece by piece, selling off the United States of America.
So it is not just the ports, as Ms. Wasserman Schultz was saying.
This is about the debt, the interest, our country. Who is holding the
debt? Japan, China, the Caribbean, Taiwan, OPEC, Korea, all own bits
and pieces of the United States. If you look at Japan and China, they
own almost $900 billion, almost the whole kit and caboodle of the $1.18
trillion that we have. Most of that is owned by Japan and China.
Again, I ask my friends, including the judge who was down here, give
us a good, solid way to explain this scenario of our country raising
the debt limit, the Republican House and Republican Senate and
Republican White House raising the debt limit by $3 trillion since
President Bush has been in, more debt than we have borrowed from
foreign interests in the past 224 years, the Republican Congress and
the President. How do you explain that and make it sound good, make it
sound positive? Because there is no way.
But our constitutional obligation, Mr. Meek, Ms. Wasserman Schultz,
is that we are here to oversee what this President is doing, and if we
feel that this President and this Congress, Republican Congress, is not
doing what they need to be doing to strengthen the United States of
America, then our job is to call you out on it; not because we want to,
but because that is our obligation here. Not because we like it.
This is our second hour tonight. We could be doing a lot of other,
different things. But this is important to the country because this
President and this Republican Congress is selling this country off
piece by piece by piece.
I say this to our friends in Congress, Mr. Speaker, who may be
watching in their offices, that if you are a business person, you can't
just keep going out and borrowing money and borrowing money and
borrowing money; and if business isn't going so well, borrow money. Get
it from China, get it from Japan, get it from Korea. You can't go out
and borrow and borrow. We have an obligation. The trade deficit with
China, $202 billion from $84 billion just a few years ago in 2000.
I yield to my friend, who has been just a strong advocate on being a
deficit hawk and getting us to balance our budget. I appreciate your
leadership.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. You know, Mr. Ryan, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I
think it is important for us to continue to say it and say it again,
that this Congress, the majority side has the President's back. It has
the President's back.
I think it is important, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, that we continue to
explain that and let it be known they are more committed to the
President's back versus the American people's back, and I think it is
important that you continue to outline that.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Well, it has been clear on a number of
different levels that they have the President's back much more so than
the Republicans' back. We can see that when it comes to their support
for the President's budget, when they support the President's
initiatives at every level.
{time} 1945
You see the red and green lights up on the board, and even when the
more moderate Republican colleagues of ours obviously desperately want
to vote differently, they hold the board open for as long as humanly
possible so that they can twist arms and get those colleagues of ours
to change their votes and vote differently than obviously their
conscience has told them that they should vote.
We are facing down now a need to increase the debt limit. The
Treasury Secretary has indicated that we are going to bump up against
our debt limit any day now, really within the next month. And we still
have not voted to do that. One of the interesting things that I have
found politically over the years is that the Republicans often accuse
Democrats of being tax-and-spend Liberals. All I ever hear is tax-and-
spend Liberal, almost like equating it with curse words.
What has been clear is that the Republicans, since they have been in
charge of this government, and in total control of this government,
they have been borrow-and-spenders. We have reached the point in
America now where this administration, this President, has spent more
than the previous President certainly, and other Presidents combined.
We have spent more money now than the previous administration, yet
Republicans continue to accuse Democrats of being tax-and-spend
Liberals. It is really just funny. It has reached the point of sardonic
humor.
Let us look at the issue of the debt limit. You see here that we have
increased the debt limit not just on one, not just on two, but on five
occasions. We had had $3 trillion of increases of the debt limit. In
billions of dollars, you have in June of 2002, $450 billion increase in
the debt limit.
In May of 2003, $984 billion increase in the debt limit. November of
2004, $800 billion increase in the debt limit. The pending increase now
is another $781 billion for a total of over $3 trillion in increasing
of the debt limit. That means that our future generations, my children,
their children, are going to owe incredible sums of money, have debt to
foreign nations, and that is not even talking about the deficit.
So many people really have trouble getting their arms around the
difference between the debt and the deficit. We have a problem with the
deficit in this country. And we have examples of that in chart form as
well.
The deficit in this country has now reached $8 trillion. $8 trillion.
Next week, Mr. Speaker, when we come back and do the 30-something hour,
we are going to have a chart that will try to illustrate for people
just what that means, what a billion dollars will do. Because it is
really staggering when you think about it. People have trouble getting
their mind around that concept: $8 trillion translated to every person
in this country means that every person in this country owes $27,000.
And when I am talking about a person, I am talking about infants as
well, babies as well.
Let us look at the budget deficits of prior Presidents. If you start
with President Reagan in 1982, he had a deficit of $128 billion. We had
a deficit of $128 billion. You go all of the way down to this
President, and we are at $323 billion.
Now that is just for fiscal year 2006. And that is obviously
increased, except for one year where it was a little bit higher. In
2004 it was a little bit higher, $412 billion. So I feel heartened that
we had somewhat of a drop, but it is on the increase again.
We have got to make sure that we get back to the point that we were
at during the Clinton administration when we did not know from the term
deficit, because we had a surplus. What we were debating during the
Clinton administration was what we were going to do with that surplus:
Were we going to use it to shore up the difficulties we were having
with social security? Were we going to use it to shore up the
difficulties that we were having with
[[Page H497]]
Medicare? We cannot have those discussions any more because we are
operating at our biggest deficit in history.
What we have proposed, and what Republicans have consistently
rejected, is going back to the PAYGO rules, the pay-as-you-go rule,
which means you do not spend it if you do not have it.
The Republicans have repeatedly and unanimously rejected going back
to the PAYGO rules. These are two examples of amendments that were
offered by Mr. Spratt from South Carolina in the 2006 budget resolution
and the 2005 budget resolution.
In 2006, it failed 165-264. And you had zero Republicans supporting
it, 228 Republicans opposing it. In the 2005 budget resolution, it
failed 194-232. Zero Republicans supporting it, 224 Republicans
opposing pay-as-you-go.
Now, who is fiscally responsible and who is not? I really ask you to
think about that. We have got to make sure that we return to pay-as-
you-go, because even though it is difficult, that is a hard policy to
adopt, making sure you have the money before you spend it, anyone who
lives, if you think about it in terms of your household budget, Mr.
Speaker, it is hard to only spend the money you have.
But we all know that you are obviously in the best fiscal shape, you
have the most fiscally sound budget in your home when you are only
spending what you take in.
There are a lot of Americans that do not do that. There are a lot of
Americans that have credit card debt. There are a lot of Americans in
this country who struggle every day to make sure that they can pay
their bills. And quite honestly, the only way that they are often able
to cover the needs that they have is by deficit spending in their own
household.
But they know that it is not the right thing to do; and ideally if
they could afford it, most of these families would not engage in that
practice. The problem is that they are not in very good shape fiscally
in their own household, so they have to. The Federal Government does
not have to. You definitely cannot argue that we do not have the money
to adopt this practice. We do. We have the money; we just do not have
the wherewithal.
Unfortunately, the Republican leadership here has not had the nerve.
I guess for lack of a better term it has not had the nerve to adopt
that responsible policy. I really do not understand it. I come from a
State legislative background, 12 years in the Florida legislature.
Anyone who comes from a legislative background and was an elected
official in their home State in this body understands that every State
in the country has to operate in the black, according to their
constitution. You cannot deficit spend in a State budget. You cannot do
it.
You have only the ability to spend the money that you have. The
Federal Government has, I guess it is a luxury, but it is a luxury that
comes back to bite you very soon as you progress down the road, and you
end up throwing your own future into tremendous debt.
There is a USA Today editorial that was just from the other day, and
it talks about who is really the party of small government and big
spending and who is not. It was really interesting. USA Today said tax
cuts, they say, forced hard decisions and restrained reckless spending.
The last time we looked, though, Republicans controlled both Congress
and the White House. They are the spenders. In fact, since they took
control in 2001, they, meaning the Republicans, have increased spending
by an average of nearly 7\1/2\ percent a year, more than double the
rate in the last 5 years of the Clinton era budget. That is really
telling.
So who is fiscally responsible? Who is for smaller government? Who is
for responsible fiscal policy? Clearly, given this chart, where it
indicates in USA Today's opinion, our third-party validator and this
chart right here, which shows the increase, drastic increase of the
deficit over time from the Reagan administration to now.
Let us look at the blue area right here. See the blue years. The blue
years are surplus, Mr. Speaker, surplus, when we did not have a
deficit, when we had PAYGO. When we only spent the money that we had.
We had some Members, Mr. Speaker, in our caucus that lost their
elections because of that vote, that lost their elections ensuring that
we would adopt responsible fiscal policy. That is because we stand on
principle.
We do not blindly support our President, we do not walk in lock step,
we vote our conscience. And I wish that I had not seen the angst in so
many of my Republican colleagues' faces when they had their arms
wrenched behind their backs and were essentially forced to vote
differently than you know in their heart they believed.
It is really sad. I feel so free to come on this floor and, you know,
Leader Pelosi, she tells you, you do what you feel is right. I know we
are not always going to agree. You have to be able to do what you think
is best for your district. Now, of course, she would like us to be
unified. And because we have such strong beliefs and values in our
caucus, we have the most unified caucus that we have had in history,
really since the 1950s, the most unified caucus.
The Democratic caucus in this Chamber knows that we can take this
country in a new direction, that together America can do better, and
that if we work together and work through our differences and build
consensus instead of forcing our colleagues to do what they do not
necessarily believe in, then we are going to make sure that we can come
up with sound policy.
The Clinton years we had surplus. The other chart that you just had
up is also telling. Again, we do not force people in the Democratic
caucus to do what they do not believe. I cannot imagine that my
Republican colleagues in every single district in this country stood in
front of their constituents during their campaigns and said, you know
what, I believe in deficit spending. I believe in an $8 trillion
deficit.
I just doubt that if I were in their districts at a town hall
meeting, that they would be telling their constituents they were glad
that we had an $8 trillion deficit. But yet they come up here and they
vote to continue to support policies like that.
I do not get it. Other than blind loyalty, I do not get it. Blind
loyalty is what is hurting our constituents here in the United States
of America.
Let us look at how just the interest payments on the national debt,
we are going back to talking about the debt, the money that we owe to
other countries now. Just look at what the interest payments would pay
for if we did not have to spend them on covering the national debt.
If we did not have to spend them, we could spend them on education,
we could spend them on homeland security, we could spend them on
improving the quality of life for our Nation's veterans. You have about
$50 billion that we could spend on helping our Nation's veterans. You
have about, I think that is about $30 billion that you could spend on
shoring up homeland security.
We are talking about domestic discretionary funding, the kind of
funding that we can specifically direct to port security and airport
security and making sure that our Nation's borders are not infiltrated
by terrorists; but we cannot spend that money on those things because
we are paying interest on our debt to other countries.
You could spend almost $100 million, I think it is about $75 billion
dollars, excuse me, we get the Bs and Ms confused sometimes, $75
billion on education.
Now, one of the biggest frustrations that I know I get in terms of
feedback from my constituents, Mr. Speaker, is the No Child Left Behind
Act and the fact that this President committed from day one, and Mr.
Miller, my good friend from California who was just here, championed
that legislation on our side with the administration's commitment that
they were going to support full funding.
We have not had full funding on No Child Left Behind. We have not had
the ability to really implement that legislation and ensure that our
children in our public schools are prepared for the path that they
choose in life. What we have done instead is we have had to spend that
money on things like interest on the national debt. We have had to
spend that money on tax cuts, because it is tax cuts that have been the
top priority of this administration.
Still today this President's and this administration's highest
priority appears to be making the tax cuts for our
[[Page H498]]
wealthiest Americans permanent, in the face of the national debt being
the size that it is, in the face of us having an $8 trillion deficit
where each American owes $27,000 apiece.
How is that possible? There are times when you just have to say, we
cannot afford it. It would be nice, but we cannot afford it. When does
that happen here?
Mr. Meek, I do not understand when that happens here. You know, I am
a mom. I have three little kids. There are times that I have to
disappoint my 6-year-olds, my twin 6-year-olds, and my 2\1/2\ year old.
I have to tell them no, we cannot buy that toy. We cannot buy that toy.
I would like to buy you that toy, but we have to save somewhere. We
have to do some belt-tightening.
No just is not in the equation with this administration. Sure we can
have billions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy. Sure we can spend
money on whatever we want. Sure we can continue to spiral our deficit
bigger and bigger and bigger, and we can go more and more in debt to
foreign countries. You know what? It is time for us to act like
responsible parents do and occasionally say no.
Occasionally remember that the household budget is something that we
have to be responsible about and return to the days when we were only
spending what we had, return to the policy of PAYGO.
{time} 2000
I just do not understand it. I really do not.
Mr. Meek, I have been talking about national debt. I have been
talking about what we could spend if we had the interest payments on
the national debt, what we could do for veterans and homeland security
and education. Instead, the net interest that we are spending is $250
billion. We can see what that would buy and it is really disturbing.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Ryan and I had to run
down to an Armed Services Committee meeting. We had a roll call vote.
And of course we want to be there for every vote. That is the reason
why the people sent us to Washington.
I think, Mr. Speaker, it is important to verbalize that those of us
on the Democratic side of the aisle have tried to do everything we
could to stop the Republican majority and the President from running
this country literally into the debt where it is now. Foreign nations
owning what they own.
I just want to come for the record because I believe in third party
validators. March 30, 2004, Republicans voted 209 to 209, Republicans
vote against our resolution 209 to 209 to reject the motion by
Representative Mike Thompson to instruct conferees to include PAYGO
requirements in that budget, in the FY 2006 budget resolution, in 2004.
I am sorry. That was 2004 vote number 97.
A similar measure was on May 5, 2004, Republicans voted 208 to 215.
They voted 215, we voted 208 to reject a similar motion by
Representative Dennis Moore of Kansas, Democrat. That is 2004 vote
number 145.
Another resolution or a vote that we put forth, an amendment similar
to November 18, 2004. Republicans voted to block a consideration by
Congressman Stenholm at that time to not raise the debt limit which
also had PAYGO requirements, not to increase the debt limit. It also
had PAYGO requirements. That is 2004 vote number 534.
There are a couple of other votes that you have, Mr. Ryan. Would you
call those out.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I would be happy to. This is the pay as you go.
This is if you spend money or you give tax cuts, you have got to find
other areas to cut spending or raise another kind of revenue. There
will be no budget deficits. Everything will be deficit neutral. Pay as
you go.
Mr. Meek just gave 3 scenarios where the Democrats put forth
amendments or motions to try to control the spending of the Republican
Congress, and in each instance the Democrats all voted for balancing
the budget and the Republicans all voted against balancing the budget.
Again, Mr. Spratt, our good friend from South Carolina who is our
ranking member on the Budget Committee, who was the architect of the
Clinton balanced budget from 1993 that led to 20 million new jobs and
surplus revenue, Mr. Spratt offered a substitute amendment. Rollcall
vote number 87 on March 17, 2005. It failed. Not one Republican voted
for the PAYGO that was included in Mr. Spratt's substitute amendment.
Again, Mr. Spratt offered another amendment. Rollcall vote 91 March
25 of 2004. Again, pay as you go. Deficit neutral. Help us reduce the
deficit. Help us get back to balanced budgets. Again, not one
Republican voted for that substitute.
Time and time again, Mr. Meek, we have offered solutions to this
problem to quit selling off our country piece by piece, and the
Republican Congress has voted against it.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, as we come in for a close there is so
much information to share there is just not enough time to do it, but
it is important that we go through that to make sure that not only
Members on the majority side know, the American people know, Mr.
Speaker, that we are doing everything in our power to be able to stop
them from selling our country off to foreign nations.
Let me illustrate this a little bit more. The U.K. owns $223.2
billion of our debt, Mr. Speaker. I think that is important to
identify. You also have Germany. Germany owns $65.7 billion of U.S.
debt. That is what they own of this country. OPEC nations, including
Saudi Arabia and other countries, $67.8 billion of our debt. This is
what they own of the United States of America.
It troubles me to put this on the silhouette of our country, but I
think it is important that we break this down so the Members know
exactly what they are doing.
Taiwan, some may have products and toys from Taiwan, and you say
``little Taiwan.'' Guess what? Little Taiwan owns $71.3 billion of our
debt.
People are so concerned about China, Mr. Speaker, and I am a member
of the Armed Services Committee. We are all sworn to protect this
country. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, yourself included, Mr. Ryan and other
Members in this Chamber, but guess what? Red China, Communist China
owns $249.8 billion of U.S. debt.
The Republican majority is so much out of control until we are
running to countries that are communist countries saying, buy our debt.
We need it. We cannot stop ourselves. We cannot help ourselves.
Canada, some folks up on the northern border like to go over to
Canada but guess what they own? $58.8 billion of the American pie. You
also have Korea, Korea, $65.5 billion of the American apple pie. And
guess what, Japan, the island of Japan, some folks look at Japan on the
map, Mr. Speaker, and say, well, it is not as big as the United States
of America. But guess what? They own $682.8 billion of U.S. debt.
We are well on our way, Mr. Speaker, to half of our debt being owned
by foreign nations, some that we have some issues with.
So Ms. Wasserman Schultz talked about secret port deals and all this
stuff, this is what is going on right now. Mr. Ryan, we are going to
bring this out as many times as possible. I want the majority side to
figure out a positive way to talk about how we owe these countries that
I have put here, and others that are unnamed, this kind of money.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Like you said, what is our benefit? We get to fund
our deficit and that is about it. We do not go belly up. But what is
our benefit? We do not have more money to invest in education as Ms.
Wasserman Schultz pointed out. We do not have more money to invest for
our veterans. This is money that is going to pay the interest on the
money that we are borrowing.
Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, you go back and you say, well, the
majority side says, well, we are doing fine. We want to cut the deficit
in half. Do not worry. Let us do it. Trust us.
Well, ``trust us'' has gotten us to this point and this has to stop,
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Let me say real quick, trust us, this is the debt
limit increases just since 2002. Since President Bush, Republican
House, Republican Senate, $3 trillion in new borrowing from the
Republican Congress. This is third party validator. This is fact.
The Truth Squad can come out and check the facts and maybe help us
find
[[Page H499]]
a positive way to talk about it. June 2, 2002, the Republicans raised
the debt limit by $450 billion. May of 2003, $984 billion. November of
2004, $800 billion.
Now, the next increase is going to be for $781 billion more. $3
trillion since President Bush and the Republican House and the
Republican Senate have been in charge of this operation here. And we
just keep going and borrowing and borrowing and borrowing from the
Japanese, the Chinese, the OPEC countries. And at the end it is
mortgaging the future of this country.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. When I began the hour I talked about imitation
being the sincerest form of flattery so it is interesting to see that
they have now engaged in a little dialogue here.
This whole conversation has really been a reflection of the culture
of corruption and cronyism and incompetence. Whether it is the debt
that foreign countries owe, whether it is the $8 trillion deficit that
we have, whether it is the pitiful and disgusting response to Hurricane
Katrina or this port deal that is deeply disturbing and that brought up
no national security implications for this President or this
administration.
Before we close it out, Mr. Ryan, Mr. Meek, I do want to urge people
to go on the Washingtonpost.com website and see the video that has just
been released of President Bush being warned about the dangers of
Hurricane Katrina before the hurricane hit and him not asking a single
question; him being warned about the levee breaks, warned about the
people in the Superdome. There is video. Washingtonpost.com.
We want to thank the Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi for the
opportunity to be here and to spend time with the American people. I
know Mr. Ryan will detail how people can reach us, if they have
comments, on our website.
Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I would like to thank Ms. Wasserman Schultz. It is
good to have you back.
Mr. Meek, congratulations again for being elected to chair of the
Congressional Black Caucus Foundation. You are such a young member.
Congratulations for getting that reward from your peers.
Www.HouseDemocrats.gov/30Something. All of the charts that the
Members saw tonight can be accessed off this website. The third party
validators. This is not Kendrick Meek and Debbie Wasserman Schultz and
Tim Ryan making this stuff up. These are facts. And hopefully these
facts will lead to us recognizing that we are not doing everything we
can and hopefully we can get the country going back in the right
direction.
____________________