[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 28 (Tuesday, March 7, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H621-H627]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     THE 30-SOMETHING WORKING GROUP

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania). Under the 
Speaker's announced policy of January 4, 2005, the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Meek) is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is an honor to once again 
address the

[[Page H622]]

U.S. House of Representatives. We would like to thank the Democratic 
leadership for the time, Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, and our 
Democratic whip, Mr. Steny Hoyer, and also Mr. James Clyburn, who is 
our chairperson.
  Also, we would like to come to the floor once again, Mr. Speaker, to 
share not only with the Members but with the American people the 
priorities not only of the Democratic Party, but of this side of the 
aisle on the Democratic side, and also the priorities of all Americans. 
Our vice chair, Mr. John Larson, communicates in the best way to many, 
many Democrats, Republicans, and Independents about our plan on this 
side of the aisle.
  It would not be a plan, it would actually be action if we were in the 
majority. I think it is important to come up with a comprehensive 
approach, Mr. Speaker, and using a team effort to move us in the right 
direction as a country; whether it be homeland security, innovation, 
affordable health care, or other initiatives that we all embrace. If we 
can come together in a bipartisan way, then America will be stronger, 
and also other countries throughout the world will be stronger based on 
our leadership.
  Unfortunately, we are not providing that leadership right now. When I 
say ``we,'' I am talking about the Republican majority coming together 
with Democrats and finding a bipartisan way to approach many of the 
issues that are facing our country right now. That is very, very 
unfortunate. The work of the 30-something Working Group is to make sure 
that we can promote ideas that all Americans embrace, not just 
Democrats, Independents, and Republicans, but all Americans, even those 
that are not taking part in the voting process that we have throughout 
the country.
  One may call it apathy of voting, but I think that I would phrase it 
as a number of Americans having very little trust in this system, very 
little trust in what goes on here in the Congress, very little trust in 
what happens over at the White House. And I think it is very, very 
important that we have a paradigm shift. I will go further and add that 
we need a shift in thinking here in Washington, DC, so that all 
Americans feel a part of this process; so that all Americans feel that 
they are being leveled with; and that all Americans know that the 
individuals that they elected from their communities, their cities or 
counties, that they have their best interests at heart when they come 
here to the U.S. House of Representatives.

                              {time}  2250

  Today we are going to talk about a number of issues, issues that are 
facing everyday Americans and things that we should be promoting here 
as Members of the U.S. House of Representatives, some of the things I 
think are very disturbing that not only I am reading in the paper but 
Americans are reading in the paper and watching on the news.
  The whole issue as it as relates to port deals, America being sold 
off not by foreign countries but by the policy that we pass here on 
this floor that have accumulated more debt in 4 years to foreign 
nations, foreign nations are buying U.S. debt, unprecedented in the 
history of the Republic. Ever since we have been a country, no other 
time such as this time have other countries owned so much of our debt. 
I think it is important for us to remember because there are a number 
of my constituents and a number of Americans that have fought hard. 
Literally, their grandparents have fought hard for them to salute one 
flag. I think we are putting that spirit, that good history that we 
have and the future they fought for to allow our children and 
grandchildren to salute one flag, not to have foreign interests owning 
our debt. I think it is very, very important that we pay close 
attention to that.
  I am glad to be joined tonight by Ms. Wasserman Schultz from South 
Florida.
  Congresswoman, I am glad we are continuing to have a level of 
consistency on not only challenging the Republican majority. The 
gentlewoman knows if we were in the majority, it would not be talk. We 
would be on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives talking 
about things that would make the lives better of Americans. I think the 
only thing that is stopping us from doing that is having enough votes 
in this House to have that vision turn into reality. I look forward to 
that day because I believe in this year Americans will have an 
opportunity to be able to promote their ideas and what they feel. Be it 
a Democrat, a Republican, a Green Party or an Independent, or a brand 
new voter, they will be able to have their voice heard.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It is a pleasure to join the gentleman for our 
30-something Working Group hour.
  When I have been home in the community you and I share, I noticed, 
and this feeling is so palpable among the average voter, the average 
citizen in America, and I have been to several different cities in the 
last number of weeks, and to a person, regardless of party, Americana' 
confidence in their government has been badly shaken, and badly shaken 
because they look to the leadership here, the Republican leadership, 
because we do not control a thing. They have the Presidency, the House 
and the Senate. So when I say that their confidence in their government 
and leadership is badly shaken, it is essentially the fault of the 
Republican leadership. It is so disturbing.
  I have only been in the Congress a year. I could list countless 
examples and share with people who have expressed their frustration and 
their sadness and their angst. My first year in Congress was capped by 
the bookends, starting 10 weeks into my service here, with the Terri 
Schiavo case and ending the year with the confirmation of Judge Alito, 
now Justice Alito, to the Supreme Court who obviously we fear will 
further erode the right to privacy that we began the year eroding with 
the Terry Schiavo case.
  If you look in between, sandwiched between those bookends, we have 
Hurricane Katrina, this port deal, we have the deficit. You have the 
debt, you have now the debt limit that we are struggling with, the 
budget reconciliation bill, the countless irresponsible budget cuts and 
the privatization of Social Security, the Medicare prescription drug 
fiasco, who the senior citizens that the gentleman and I represent, 
they are just in tears. They do not know what to do. Just in our 
community alone, there are 43 different plans offered by 18 different 
companies. It is pure insanity.
  So it is no wonder that our constituents and the American people are 
frustrated. Their confidence in their leadership is badly shaken. Our 
responsibility over the next several months is going to be to help 
restore that confidence because we have that ability. We have an agenda 
and the things that we would do if we were here would restore that 
confidence, and those are the kinds of things that we talk about on 
this floor.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. We like third-party validators, and I think it 
is important for the American people to understand this is not 
something that Ms. Wasserman Schultz and Mr. Ryan or other members of 
the 30-something Working Group just dream up. I think it is important 
as an American, leave alone a Member of Congress. I am alarmed and 
very, very concerned about what is happening. I have children. I pray 
to God that they have children and the family line continues.
  But I am concerned about right now. I am concerned about what is 
happening as relates to the irresponsible policies that have been 
passed by the Republican majority.
  We are all friends. We all put our pants on one leg at a time, or 
what have you, but I think it is important that we alert Americans 
about this unprecedented time in the history of the country. I am 
saying right now as we speak, this moment.
  I want to hold up, this is an article that came out today. It is an 
AP story. Any of the Members in their office can pull this up from the 
AP Web site. I think it is important. It says ``Treasury Details Its 
Steps to Avoid Debt Limit.'' I want to read a couple of paragraphs 
here. Treasury Secretary John Snow, and this is Secretary Snow, he is a 
good guy. He is just an accountant for the United States of America. We 
appreciate his service and what he does in the Treasury Department. But 
John Snow told the Congress yesterday that the administration has taken 
all prudent and legal actions, to include tapping certain government 
retirement funds, to keep from reaching the $8.2 trillion national debt 
limit.

[[Page H623]]

  Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about this because now we are 
tapping into funds that not only Federal workers but the people on the 
United States of America count on us to be able to govern correctly. In 
a letter to Congress, Snow urged lawmakers to pass a new debt ceiling 
immediately to avoid the first default on obligations in U.S. history.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not talking about something that I embellished. 
This is what Mr. Snow said from the Treasury Department.
  If I am the Republican majority, leave alone the leadership, I would 
be alarmed. I would sit up in my bed and say, we have to do something 
about it. What is unfortunate is that I know, as sure as my name is 
Kendrick Meek, representing Florida's 17th Congressional District, and 
by that we have been validated to represent the people of the United 
States of America, I know the Republican majority is going to rubber-
stamp what Secretary Snow needs, because it is an outrageous example of 
the kind of spending and borrowing that this majority has taken us 
into.
  I think it is important to promote what we have been trying to do on 
this floor as Democrats, time after time again, promoting pay-as-you-go 
versus borrowing. We are not out of control, the Republican majority is 
out of control. It is not just me name calling or finger pointing. This 
is fact, not fiction. I can see if it were fiction and if we were doing 
what we call in Washington, DC, the Potomac two step. I go left, you go 
right; no, this is what is printed not only in the Congressional 
Record, when you have the Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, appointed by 
the President and confirmed by the Republican Senate, we have to be 
very alarmed. For Republicans and Independents that are paying 
attention to what we are saying on this floor, and other parties, they 
cannot say oh, that is just the Democrats glossing over the facts.

                              {time}  2300

  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I am a freshman, and I have only been here a 
year, and I see this chart in between us. I am wondering, is this 
potential increase in the debt limit unprecedented? Is it the first 
time it has happened? Just illuminate for me what the history of debt 
limit increases is, if there is one.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Ms. Wasserman Schultz, there have been in this 
Republican House, and I am just going to talk about President Bush 
being in office, this Republican majority, I am going to point the 
letters out and let you go ahead and drive your point.
  December 29, a letter written, Mr. Speaker, in the closing days of 
2005, the closing days, the 29th. Americans think about what they were 
doing on the 29th. Many Americans were off work, those that had jobs 
and what have you, celebrating with their families, thinking about the 
new year.
  Secretary Snow found his way to the office to send this letter to one 
of our colleagues over in the Congress, over in the Senate, that says, 
``We must raise the debt limit or we will be unable to continue to 
finance government operations.''
  That is just for this round. I mean, I think it is important that we 
get staff to be able to get the rest of the letters that Secretary Snow 
wrote.
  Here is a letter just written in February, February 16. This letter 
is to the ranking member, Mr. John Spratt, who is the ranking member on 
the Democratic side, again saying, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, we must do 
this now, Mr. Speaker, saying we must raise this debt limit as soon as 
possible or they are going to have to go into the Federal retirement 
system and stop paying into that system.
  I want to say to the Federal workers, because we believe in third 
party validators and also believe in telling the truth, the Secretary 
goes on to say, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, he believes once the debt limit 
is raised, we will be able to pay back into the retirement system.
  These letters are coming so fast and furious, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, 
we can't get them up on the big board. Here is a letter, March 6, that 
was just yesterday. Secretary Snow, this is alarming, he is saying, did 
you receive my two letters beforehand?
  Then he talks to the press. We have a problem. NASA is also located 
in Florida, but also in Houston, but Houston, we have a problem. He is 
saying to the United States Congress, we have a problem.
  How did we come about the problem and having to raise the debt 
ceiling? It is because of the policies of the Republican majority that 
have rubber stamped everything the President said do.
  Ms. Wasserman Schultz, yes, there are a number of letters and alarms 
going off.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I have another question. In looking over our 
third party validators, I am wondering if you have got the Secretary of 
the Treasury setting off alarm bells and really saying that there is 
fire in the theater, why is it that we have not seen an increase in the 
debt limit on the floor? Could it perhaps be that that is something 
that the Republican leadership thinks is unwise to have their Members 
vote on? Is it that this is not the first time, as I asked you earlier, 
that the debt limit has been increased?
  In looking at this chart just in the last few minutes, I notice that 
in June of 2002 the debt limit was increased by $450 billion. And who 
was President then?
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. President Bush.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. I believe President Bush was in office then. 
In May of 2003, the debt limit was increased by another $984 billion, 
with a B. In November of 2004, the year of the election, $800 billion. 
We have a $781 billion increase pending now, with a total increase of 
$3.015 trillion.
  When President Clinton was in office, I was in the State legislature 
then, for a time until you were elected to Congress you were too, we 
had a system in place called PAYGO, pay-as-you-go, which it is my 
understanding is similar to the way people prefer in America to run 
their households, where you do not spend money that you don't have, 
unlike what is going on under the Republican leadership where they 
appear to enjoy spending like drunken sailors and ``no'' doesn't appear 
to be possible under this administration, unless, of course, it is to 
talk about continuing tax cuts for the wealthiest. We say ``yes'' to 
that. We say ``yes'' to anything politically that they want to advance. 
The ``no'' is to people who can't afford health care, cutting Medicaid. 
The ``no'' that they propose to say is to people who are struggling to 
pay for higher education.
  So, if we went back to PAYGO rules, which we have proposed time and 
again and they have rejected time and again, then we would be again in 
a situation where it wouldn't be necessary to increase the debt limit 
because we would be only spending money that we have.
  Here is another third party validator, which is the Congressional 
Record. In 2006, in this budget resolution, of course it was defeated, 
228 Republicans voted against it, it was defeated 264-165 when we 
proposed to return to the pay-as-you-go rules. Then again last year, it 
was defeated 232-194 and 224 Republicans voted against it.
  So, to me to break this down in more simple terms, because PAYGO and 
billions and trillions and debt limit is something that if you are not 
dealing with it on a daily basis, it is somewhat difficult to 
understand, one of the things we like to do here is break things down 
for people that may be listening into regular terms, into the things 
that they deal with every day.
  So I thought, Mr. Speaker, it would be a good idea, because a billion 
is a very big number, a billion is a hard concept to grasp, because 
most people don't deal in the billions when they are dealing with their 
everyday normal activity, so let's try to define what a billion is in 
the way that people think about things in their daily life.
  Broken down, a billion hours ago, for example, humans were making 
their first tools in the stone age. That is how much a billion hours 
ago was, if you are thinking about what a billion means.
  Let's think about what happened a billion seconds ago. A billion 
seconds ago it was 1975 and the last American troops had just pulled 
out of Vietnam. That is how big a billion is. We are in 2006. That was 
30 years, 31 years ago.
  A billion minutes ago it was 104 A.D., Mr. Speaker, and the Chinese 
first invented paper. That is how long ago it

[[Page H624]]

was, if you think about a billion in terms of minutes.
  Then a billion dollars ago, under this administration and under the 
Republican leadership, a billion dollars ago was only 3 hours and 32 
minutes at the rate that the administration and this Republican 
Congress spends money.
  So we have a billion hours ago, it was the stone age; a billion 
seconds ago, it was 31 years ago; a billion minutes ago, it was 104 
A.D. and we were first talking about the invention of paper. But under 
the Republican leadership and this administration, a billion dollars 
ago was only 3 hours 32 minutes at the rate of spending under this 
administration and the Congressional leadership. It is just 
astonishing, it really is, if you think about it, broken down in this 
way.
  All the American people want is their confidence restored. All they 
want to see is that the people here in this Chamber are using their 
heads and applying some common sense and thinking about the budget and 
the money that we spend in the way they would like to think about their 
own household budget, spending the money that we have, spending it 
wisely, spending it on things that they care about, not giving away the 
store, which unfortunately, it appears to be the direction that we have 
been going in.
  We are giving away the store in so many ways. Like the port deal, for 
example. We represent Miami, both of us. I represent Fort Lauderdale. I 
have both Port Everglades and the port of Miami abutting my district.
  I went down to the port of Miami, you and I have both been there, it 
is one of the six ports that the Dubai Ports World deal impacts, and 
for the people that I have talked to in our community and the calls and 
communications I have been getting, it defies logic. They really just 
cannot believe that the President does not understand why people are so 
deeply concerned that we would have a foreign government-owned 
corporation running the terminal operations at six of our major ports.
  This is not just any government, this is a government that just 5 
years ago was involved directly, indirectly, in both tangential and 
more substantive ways in the 9/11 attacks.

                              {time}  2310

  There were 58 references in the 9/11 Commission Report to the United 
Arab Emirates and their involvement, either through allowing the 9/11 
financing to be funneled through their banks, or just the fact that two 
of the 9/11 terrorists lived in the United Arab Emirates.
  But the astonishing thing is that there were no national security 
reviews triggered under the law when the administration's committee 
that reviewed these deals took a look at it. There were no alarm bells 
set off. And that is even more astonishing because it is not even like 
we are checking the vast majority of containers and goods that come 
through our ports. Less than 6 percent, if you take a look at this 
chart, less than 6 percent of U.S. cargo coming through our ports is 
physically inspected, Mr. Speaker. Ninety-five percent is not 
inspected, 5 percent is inspected.
  And that is in spite of the fact that Democrats have repeatedly 
proposed increasing the funding so that we can ensure more of the cargo 
coming through our ports is inspected. Literally what I learned when I 
went to the Port of Miami, Mr. Meek, is that in the last 5 years we 
have increased our security funding at our airports by $18 billion, 
which is a good thing. I mean that is absolutely essential.
  And we have increased our port security funding by $700 million. Now, 
if you remember, I just went over the difference of what a billion 
means. So $18 billion on airport security, less than $700 million on 
port security.
  I mean, you cannot rest our Nation's security on taking your shoes 
off as you go through the magnetometer at an airport. That cannot be 
the sum total of the additional security that we have increased since 
9/11. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I think the point was, and we were all 
campaigning during the initial vote for the war. But I remember making 
the argument as I was campaigning, as I think a lot of other Democrats 
were here in the House, instead of going off to war, the alternative 
was, now we are spending a billion and a half dollars a week in Iraq, I 
think one of the alternative proposals was to fund this stuff, take 
care of the Nation's security, take care of the ports, make sure that 
we have enough people to do the kind of real inspection that we think 
needs to be done instead of spending the money elsewhere.
  And when you think about it in a logical way, that this money is 
going to be spent to hire American workers to protect America, it makes 
a lot of sense.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. It has just been astonishing to me. I 
literally have had more calls in a shorter period of time on this issue 
from constituents, and not the organized calls, not the calls that 
groups generate, that they, you know, send an e-mail out to their 
members and say, call your Congresswoman, here is her phone number.
  This is Joe and Jane Average Constituent who saw the news or read the 
newspaper or listened to the radio and called me and said, you know, 
what is going on here? Do these people not get it? How could they not 
get it? I have had little old ladies crying on the other end of the 
phone in my district office because the flames that have been fanned so 
much by this administration on the terror threat and national security, 
which is understandable because we really needed to raise the level of 
concern in America about being conscious of our own security. That is 
understandable.
  But for the President to be shocked by the American people's 
reaction, that is what is so astonishing, that they are really the 
victims, I guess. Their decision is really the result of their own 
magnification of this issue. And, you know, that they have not 
responded with the funding that we need to enhance port security is 
just truly shocking.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I just want to make this point too, Mr. Speaker, 
that, you know, we are not saying that when the Democrats take over in 
January that all of a sudden we are going to inspect every single ship 
that comes into the United States of America. That is not what we are 
saying.
  But what we are saying, first is because we are going to have to 
start balancing the budget and start plugging a lot of the holes that 
the Republican majority will have left us to clean up, what we are 
saying is, 5 percent of the cargo coming in is a small amount.
  And when the Democrats are in charge, we want to refocus our efforts 
on port security and make a little bit more of an effort. So it may not 
be 100 percent, but we are saying that it is a priority for us to make 
this kind of investment.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. The question, Mr. Speaker here is, does the 
Republican majority have the will and the desire to make the kind of 
change we need to take or make to protect this country? The will and 
the desire.
  Now, the will may be there, but the desire is  questionable. And I 
think it is important, because there are other priorities that the 
Republican majority, and I would say some of them join in with some of 
us Democrats, very few, unfortunately, it is in the single digits, 
because we are not able to promote some of things that we need to 
promote to protect this country.

  Now over the weekend, there were a lot of pundits out there talking 
about, wow, you know, this thing may very well change, this thing 
meaning the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate, because the 
Republican majority, Mr. Speaker, has fumbled the ball time after time 
again.
  Since this is now NCAA time, they have lost the ball when they were 
supposed to shoot a shot on behalf of protecting this country. The 
other team is taking it the other way. I think it is important to get 
in the spirit. We have to break this thing down so that we all 
understand. Some people say we need to put the cookie on the bottom 
shelf so that everyone can reach.
  I think it is important. I am using a metaphor, but I think it is 
important that everyone understands. Folks are wondering why we are 
alarmed. Now I can tell you, I speak here with great confidence, Mr. 
Speaker, because I have the facts here not fiction. I think it is 
important, Mr. Ryan, that we share with people that on January 29, 
2005, during a meeting of the House and Senate conferees, our ranking 
Member on Appropriations, Mr. Obey, offered,

[[Page H625]]

along with Senator Byrd, one of the longest-serving Senators over in 
the Senate, offered an amendment to increase funding for port and 
container security by $300 million.
  The house conferees defeated the amendment along party lines. When we 
say along party lines, I want to make sure the Members understand. That 
means Republicans voted one way against that, increasing the funding so 
that we can be able to do what was said, secure the containers more.
  Can we get that container chart up here, because I want to make sure, 
just in case the Republican majority, some of the Members have their 
television turned down, that they are able to see what we are talking 
about. Because I think it is important. There it is right there. It is 
already there.
  These containers here that are being checked, the 5 percent of them, 
and I am questioning that as a Member of the Homeland Security 
Committee if it is really 5 percent. As Democrats, Mr. Speaker, we are 
not saying that we want to do something about it, we are trying to do 
something about it. But the Republican majority is not allowing us to 
do so.
  And we want to make sure that we share with them, because we want 
their constituents to know and we want our constituents to know that we 
are fighting on their behalf. All of us are Americans saluting one 
flag.
  On October 7, 2005, during a meeting of House and Senate conferees, 
that is when House and Senate Members come together. When the House and 
Senate pass their individual bills, they select certain Members to be 
able to go into a room and work out the differences between that bill.
  That goes back to in our generation a cartoon, I am Just a Bill on 
Capitol Hill. Again, Senator Byrd and Representative Obey, offered an 
amendment to increase funding to enhance port security by $150 million, 
Republicans defeated it on a party-line vote.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I know you are getting on a roll.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I wanted to do a couple more.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a point here. The 
last chart that we had up said that the Coast Guard is saying they need 
a $7 billion increase in funding. Now you are reading these amendments.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, wait. Hasn't the President and the 
Republican majority said, we want to listen to people in the field and 
give them what they need when they ask for it? Am I correct?
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. That is right. Again this is a third-party 
validator. This is from the Federal Register. Coast Guard estimate to 
implement the Maritime Transportation Security Act, how much money do 
we need to protect ourselves? $7 billion.
  What has the Republican Congress appropriated? $900 million, .9 
billion. So we have got a long way to go here as you can see. So as Mr. 
Meek is going to start reading this stuff, Mr. Speaker, this is 
billions.
  Democrats were trying to put amendments on that were like $150 
million. We are not even trying to increase it all that much. But we 
are saying we tried a billion. We tried $500 million.

                              {time}  2320

  Mr. MEEK of Florida. We are trying to work in a bipartisan way.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. There is a $6 billion gap between what the 
Coast Guard says they need and what the Republican Congress 
appropriated.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. You are making a strong point here, Mr. Meek.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, it is not a point. This is fact, Mr. 
Speaker. I think it is important that we say June 18, 2004, Democrats 
supported an amendment to increase port container security by $400 
million. Republicans have refused to allow it to be considered, the 
amendment to be considered. That means they moved on a procedural way.
  June 9, 2004, Democrats supported Obey amendment once again in 
Appropriations Committee to increase container security by $400 
million. Republicans defeated it on a party-line vote. That is House 
report 108-541, page 128.
  Now, we have all of this stuff that will be on the Web site, Mr. 
Speaker, so that other Members can get to it, and it goes on and on and 
on.
  Enough of this, the Democrats do not have plans. That is what the 
majority wants you to believe. We have plans. Unfortunately, they 
cannot be reality because the Republican majority does not want to work 
in a bipartisan way. And it is upsetting. It is beyond upsetting 
because our country is being jeopardized. Meanwhile, we have 
individuals that are hired by the Republican majority going out here 
talking to these cable shows and Sunday shows on spend. This is not 
about spend. This is about making America stronger and more secure.
  The bottom line is the reason why, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, many of the 
Republicans are getting a little shaky now, because on this subject, 
Mr. Speaker, we have been on top of it. The record speaks for itself. 
Fiscal responsibility: we have been on top of it. On securing America: 
we have been on top of it. On innovation: there is not an issue that 
Americans are looking for that we have not tried to address and 
continued to try to address even though we are in the minority. Being 
in the minority is not an excuse for us. It is just something that does 
not allow us procedurally to allow these American ideas to bubble up 
and allow the American people to be prepared.
  You want to talk about fuel. We can talk about that too. You can talk 
about energy. We can do all of these things. But until the American 
people truly understand that what they hear from the Republican 
majority is not necessarily fact, then we are going to continue to go 
in the wrong direction as it relates to the history of this country.
  Being a Member of this Congress, I almost feel that we are just as 
important as the Continental Congress, the first Congress, because now, 
no other time in the history of the country have we been in this kind 
of posture as a country, not due to the fact what folks are doing on 
foreign soil. It is what the Republican majority is doing to us right 
now based on friends and family and a number of things that have taken 
place in this Chamber unprecedented.
  Ms. Wasserman Schultz, I am sorry, I wanted to make sure I got that 
out because I think it is important, not only third-party validators, 
the Congressional Record, and actions we have taken, because it does 
not upset me, the fact that this stuff is not being reported the way it 
should be reported; but I am extremely concerned about the fact that we 
have the Republican majority that is not even shaken by this. 
Meanwhile, 50 percent of our debt, almost 50 percent of our debt is 
being owned by foreign interests.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. What is amazing, and you are so right, what 
has happened in the last several weeks is there has been an effort by 
the Bush administration since this DPW port deal has come to light to 
portray this as people who have a problem with Middle Eastern countries 
and even have gone so far as to say, well, why are you concerned, 
because Federal agencies control and conduct all port security.
  I learned and knew this, but it was illuminated even more clearly 
when I went to the port that that is not the case. Yes, on the external 
port properties the government body running the port, in our case, in 
Miami it is the Board of County Commissioners in Miami, they are 
responsible for external security. But at a terminal in the Port of 
Miami Terminal Operating Company and under the five other terminals 
that DPW would take over, they are responsible for their own internal 
security. They will have intimate knowledge of the external security on 
the port property, and they are responsible for security internally.
  This is a foreign government-owned company. This is not a private 
company from a foreign country. It is a foreign government-owned 
company.
  Would it be okay with anyone in this country, not the least of which 
should be the Bush administration, if the same situation occurred in an 
airport? Would we let a foreign government-owned company run a terminal 
in our airports? Would we let them control loading and off-loading 
passengers or cargo coming into an airport? Not in a billion, no pun 
intended, years. Really.
  Why are they so unconcerned about port security?
  Let us look at what the Coast Guard is responsible for. Again, third-
party

[[Page H626]]

validators. The Coast Guard on a typical day saves 15 lives, assists 
117 people in distress, protects $2.8 million in property, interdicts 
30 illegal migrants at sea, conducts 90 search and rescue cases, seizes 
$21 million worth of illegal drugs, responds to 11 oil and hazardous 
chemical spills, and boards and inspects 122 vessels.
  There are 361 ports in this country that they are responsible for, 
and we have 95,000 miles of coastline. And the difference between what 
the Coast Guard has said they needed, $7.2 billion to really complete 
their mission in terms of port security, and what the Republican 
leadership here has appropriated, $910 million, is $6 billion. There is 
a disconnect from the top to the bottom here. It is shocking.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. When you think about the $16 billion in corporate 
welfare that we have given to the energy companies; when you think 
about the billions and billions and billions of dollars in subsidies we 
have given to the health insurance industry through the prescription 
drug program that has been a total debacle, you will see that what the 
Democrats are saying is that we have a better plan.
  We will not give $16 billion to the oil industry, the most profitable 
industry in the world, Mr. Speaker. We want to spend that money 
prudently, in a fashion that best represents the interests of the 
American people. And that is what we have been trying to do as Mr. Meek 
went through, Mr. Speaker. Amendment after amendment after amendment, 
the Democrats and the minority tried to attach to the majority 
Republican Party's bills. And we tried to get September 29, and you can 
get all of this, and we should put all of this on our Web site so 
everyone can see Democrats have tried and tried and tried to get 
increased funding for homeland security and for the protection of our 
ports, whether it was Mr. Obey from Wisconsin, Mr. Sabo, Senator Byrd, 
Mr. Obey, Mr. Sabo again and again and again. All throughout.
  This sheet goes from 2001, 2003, 2003, 2003, 2003, 2004, 2004. Time 
and time again the Democratic Party has tried to get amendments on 
spending bills that would increase funding for port security by $100 
million, by $500 million, by more if we could try to plug this gap.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. The thing that we did not mention yet that is 
the most outrageous is the President in his budget that he just 
proposed actually eliminates direct port security grants. He literally 
says, no, no, no, we do not need to directly appropriate grant money to 
individual ports for port security. I have a bright idea. He has a 
bright idea. He wants to let ports compete for security grant funding 
with railway stations and airports and have any one of these 
transportation-related entryways to our country compete for security 
grants.
  I mean, I do not understand that. He proposed it last year, and the 
response from the Republican Congress was a $910 million appropriations 
for port security. And now he is proposing it yet again.

                              {time}  2330

  Where are their priorities? If we are going to propose cuts to try to 
get the budget deficit situation under control, do we start with port 
security? I mean, when they are sitting down around the table in the 
Roosevelt Room, I really want to be a fly on the wall sometimes. Who in 
there is saying port security grants, that is what we should, that is 
how we are going to solve the deficit? Medicaid funding, we have got 
all the poor people covered with health care; who are the people the 
most in need, where are our most significant needs, let us cut those. 
It is astonishing.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Again, I just want to make this point because we 
are not demagoguing this issue. What we are saying is 95 percent of the 
cargo coming into the country is not inspected. All we are saying is it 
should not be 5 percent. Should it be 90 or 80 or 70 or 50 or 40? It 
should be certainly something more than 5 percent, and all we are 
saying is we are giving corporate subsidies to the oil industry, giving 
corporate subsidies to the energy companies, giving corporate 
subsidies, totally, billions and billions and billions, to the health 
industry. You are giving tax cuts to Bill Gates, and this is going on.
  So Democrats, Mr. Speaker, want to say let us increase this gradually 
as we are able to balance the budget and hopefully make investments in 
this. You are going to hire American people, hire American worker, 
protect the country, send a signal across the world that do not even 
try it, okay. That is the bottom line.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. There is also specifically related to this 
Dubai Ports World deal a way to deal with it. There is the bigger issue 
of port security, and then there is this deal. What is it that is so 
darn important about this deal that it caused the President to threaten 
his first veto that if, God forbid, the Congress would do something 
crazy like pass legislation to stop it, to slow it down to conduct the 
national security review that should be done? I have the legislation 
that I have introduced on the House side and Senators Menendez and 
Clinton and Bill Nelson from our State that have introduced on the 
Senate side that would say that we should not allow foreign government 
companies to own or lease ports from us in this country and we should 
stop this deal and we should review the other foreign government-owned 
terminals that currently already are in the United States and give 
congressional oversight in that area.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is a no-brainer, and we called 
for a vote last week, Mr. Speaker, to stop the port deal, period. 
Forty-five days for what? What do we have to think about here? That 45 
days later we are going to say it is okay for foreign interests to be 
able to operate six of our major ports, including New York, that the 
whole thing, 9/11, should mean something? Our major ports, fine, that 
is okay, but let me tell you something, we do not have to wait 45 days 
to not do the deal. You got folks in the Republican majority who say, 
well, you know, after 45-days we are going to--after 45 days, the facts 
are still going to be the facts.
  The Coast Guard raised the question of security as it relates to this 
port deal, and deals like this happen every day here in Washington, 
D.C., under this Republican majority and this White House. The 
President dared the Congress to pass a bill because he would veto it. 
That is on the record. I did not say it. He said it.
  You know something, I would like to tell the Republican majority to 
leader it. We are trying to call for a vote, and I guarantee you there 
will be another attempt to call a vote this week. We want to separate 
the leaders from the followers. We say we want to balance the budget, 
which we have done. The Republican majority say they want to cut it in 
half. You take the choice what you want. Do you want to continue to 
have foreign countries buy our debt? But that is for individuals 
willing to be followers. The thing about the United States is we 
believe in leadership. We want to lead. We do not want to follow.
  The bottom line is the Republican majority is fine with following 
economically, following as it relates to leadership on this port deal. 
They have a problem because they have been rubber stamping everything 
that the President has said. The President says let us turn right, 
okay, let us turn right; okay, let us turn left, they turn left. That 
is not what the Constitution says.
  We did not stand out in front of the precinct saying, hey, I am 
running for Congress; I am willing to do everything that the President 
asks me to do, regardless of how you feel about it. That is not what we 
ran for office for, Mr. Speaker.
  So when we look at these deals, I think it is very, very important. 
Secretary Snow is asking us to raise the debt ceiling by $82 billion. 
Who is going to buy that debt? Who is going to buy it?
  Can I for a minute talk about who is buying it and who will buy it? 
Here is my map here again. This is not a weather map. This is a map to 
talk about who is going to buy this $821 billion that Secretary Snow is 
calling for, not because he feels like it. It is because he has to.
  I am going to start off with the big one. Japan, $862 billion of our 
debt. Japan is not a county anywhere in any of these States. China, Red 
China, China has all the jobs. China, that has a positive trade with 
the United States but we do not have positive trade with them, are 
buying up our country while

[[Page H627]]

the Republican majority is sitting here saying do not worry about it 
America, trust us. The UK, $223.2 billion owned of the United States of 
America debt. Taiwan, $71.3 billion. Korea, that should ring a bell 
with some people and especially some of our veterans, $66.5 billion. 
Germany, Germany should ring a bell with some of our veterans, $65.7 
billion of our debt, and Canada, just north of, us $53.8 billion. OPEC 
Nations, oh, wow, who are they? It happens to be Saudi Arabia, happens 
to be Iran, happens to be Iraq.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. UAE.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. $67.8 billion. So, Mr. Speaker, when we start 
talking about raising the debt ceiling and responsibility, we balanced 
the budget. We did not have these issues. When I say ``we,'' I am 
saying the Democratic Congress balanced the budget without a single 
Republican vote.
  The reason why I speak boldly on this issue is the fact that it is 
fact and it is not fiction and that we are sharing it with them. The 
real issue, when you talk about the ports, some Members may say the 
bill that you have and a number of Members signed on to in the Senate, 
a number of Members who have signed on to it, Mr. Speaker, they are 
saying, well, you know, I do not represent a port city or a coastal 
city so I do not have anything to worry about. Well, guess what, these 
containers that we see here are all throughout America because these 
containers are loaded on to trucks and trains, and they go through 
America. If a terrorist wants to put a nuclear device in one of these 
containers to be put into activation in a certain U.S. city, they have 
the power to do so because they know that we only check 5 percent. That 
is not because we cannot check more. It is because we cannot get 
amendments passed here as Democrats in the minority to check more and 
protect America. So I think it is important we do it.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. I think it is important for us to say, Mr. Speaker, 
to the Members of this chamber that this is brinksmanship now with the 
debt ceiling. We are on the line here, and Secretary Snow, and I do not 
know if you went over this before.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. I did but go over it again.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. March 6 sent a letter to John Spratt who is our 
ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee. Today, it was reported in the 
Associated Press the Secretary told Congress yesterday in this letter, 
the administration is taking, quote, all prudent and legal actions, end 
quote, including tapping certain government retirement funds. Now they 
are tapping retirement funds to keep from reaching the $8.2 trillion 
national debt limit, and in the letter to Congress he said that we need 
to raise the debt ceiling immediately to avoid the first government 
default on its obligations in U.S. history.

                              {time}  2340

  If this outfit hasn't gotten us into a real predicament, I don't know 
what a predicament is. If we don't raise the debt ceiling, we are going 
to default on our obligations. The United States of America, Mr. 
Speaker, for the first time in our history.
  I would be happy to yield.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. There is a very simple solution: we return to 
PAYGO rules. We return to the days when we spent what we had, like 
people in American households try to do every single day and struggle 
to do. But we have the ability to establish a rule. We have the ability 
to follow a rule that says we will only spend what we have. We have 
advocated, as Democrats, restoring the PAYGO rule, and we have been 
repeatedly rejected by the Republican leadership because they just want 
to continue to borrow and spend, borrow and spend.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. So let us look at this. We talked about two things 
basically tonight. We talked about the ports and the debt ceiling. On 
the port deal, to try to increase spending, the Democrats offered, I 
don't know, a dozen different amendments to try to increase funding 
from U.S. ports, and each time the Republican majority shot our idea 
down.
  We had ideas. We offered solutions. The Republican majority, Mr. 
Speaker, shot us down. Ms. Wasserman Schultz just talked about the pay-
as-you-go system, where if you pay more for a program, you have to find 
money somewhere. You have to raise revenue or cut spending, but you 
have to pay for it so we don't have to borrow from all these foreign 
countries.
  Former Member Mr. Stenholm offered an amendment to try to implement 
PAYGO rules into the budget process. Mr. Thompson from California tried 
to do it, Mr. Moore from Kansas tried to do it, and Mr. Spratt tried to 
do it on numerous occasions, to implement pay-as-you-go rules to try to 
constrain the reckless spending from our Republican colleagues, Mr. 
Speaker. And in each instance, Mr. Meek, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, it was 
the Republican majority who said we will not accept fiscal discipline, 
we will not accept increased funding for our ports; and the Democrats 
were the party offering the ideas and offering the amendments time and 
time and time and time again to prevent this from happening, where we 
owe Japan $682 billion, we owe China $250 billion, and we owe OPEC 
countries, Mr. Meek, $67.8 billion.
  Now, that is a shame. And I don't like that. And I don't think the 
American people like that.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Ryan, you are 110 percent right. As we 
close, Mr. Speaker, since we have only 3 minutes or so left, once again 
we have seen this chart, and as I have said before, it will be in the 
National Archives. We are not trying to make history, but just to 
report what is going on here so the American people will know this.
  In 224 years of great history in this great country of ours, 1776 to 
2000, 42 Presidents, $1.01 trillion was borrowed from foreign nations. 
That is 224 years. And in 4 years, from 2001 to 2005, President Bush, 
and we don't want to leave out the Republican Congress, borrowed $1.05 
trillion from foreign nations, in 4 years, jeopardizing the financial 
security of this country.
  Mr. Ryan, you are 110 percent right to be alarmed.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Thank you. Thank you.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. You are 110 percent right to be alarmed.
  Mr. Speaker, I challenge the Republican majority to give us a good 
way to talk about this. They can't. They can't, Mr. Speaker. We hope we 
can have what we call a paradigm shift, a change in the way we do 
business here in Washington, D.C., not on behalf of the Democratic 
Party but on behalf of the American people.
  So we are looking for a comprehensive game plan, Mr. Speaker, because 
we have one. We have one on this side. History is on our side. The 
precedent is on our side of trying to do something about it. We ask for 
the majority to join us in this.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Meek, the point I want to add is this body 
has openings for people of courage, and we encourage them to apply for 
those jobs over the next several months.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Job openings.
  Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. There are job openings for people of courage. 
We need a few more people of courage. There are a couple on that side, 
but we need a whole lot more.
  Mr. RYAN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, www. House Democrats.gov/30something. 
That is www.HouseDemocrats.gov/30something. Members of Congress can go 
to this Web site and access all of the charts, see our third-party 
validators, and see why we are so alarmed at what is going on here in 
our Nation's capital.
  I yield to my good friend, Mr. Meek.
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, with that we would like to thank 
not only the Democratic leadership but also many of us here in the 
House who are trying to work hard on behalf of the American people. I 
know we all are, but I think it is important that we bring these issues 
to the forefront.

                          ____________________